Greetings to the Planning Board, City Council Members, and City Staff and Citizens of Edmonds:
I understand that our city officials are in the midst of updating the Tree Code, which is important before making any Planning Changes, and I commend them for taking time to do so. As I look at the information available, it does not appear that there are any cutting restrictions or enough incentives to retain trees (which would be preferable) for private property owners who have most of the trees in Edmonds.
It does not seem meaningful to write a Tree Code which leaves out 70% or more of the trees in the city which are on private property. The goal of the Tree Code is to retain and increase the number of trees in our city because their numbers continue to decrease. As you well know trees are one of the best carbon digesters available. In this time when we have significant carbon reduction goals, it makes sense to keep as many trees as we can.
Obviously, people are attached to their own property, but sometimes they do not realize the health and other consequences to the community, and ultimately to their own families, of cutting down trees on their property (unless they are diseased or dangerous). By first educating the public and especially property owners about the value of trees to the community, some property owners may decide to retain that tree. Next, offer incentives to retain the trees (such as reducing city utility bills or adding another tree to their property (I think this idea was originally included) or other incentives. Also, encourage tree donations by individuals in the community to locations where there is room in the city, of course in parks and open spaces, but also on private property in low-income neighborhoods where there might be few trees, or nearby county land where there is space. Assessing fines for unlawful tree removal would only be used in the most dire situations.
It is possible that the current Tree Code has significant additions or changes from the earlier version that I saw. I will be interested in reviewing the up-to-date code to see what alterations have been made.
Thank you for your work on this Ccode and for the other policies and codes you work on each year. I appreciate your time in looking at these issues seriously and your attention to public comments.
Sincerely,
We live in a property where we have at least 5 “house killer” trees, and there are 2 trees in my neighbors’ yards that could severely damage my house.
After Tuesday night’s windstorm though, I’m seriously considering cutting the ones on my property, BUT I want to replace them that will not grow much taller than the house.
When I pulled out of my driveway yesterday, a branch fell on my spot: it was 4-5 ft long, but heavy enough to cause some damage to my car,but a lot of damage had it fallen from 30+ft in me.
Yes, we should strive for as much vegetation as possible, but not at the risk of our lives.
Just because a tree is big, does not mean it is a killer tree. Big trees are a tremendous benefit to our climate and wildlife. You won’t find our eagles and herons perching on or nesting in shrub size trees. Having big trees inspected regularly by a certified arborist can help allay fears. Managing trees in this way reduces the chance of fallen limbs and catches signs of disease that indicate when a tree may be becoming a real, rather than an imagined, danger. Seeing a post windstorm photo of a tree on a house can certainly incite fear, but I hope everyone with big trees will conduct a calm and rationale risk analysis with the assistance of a qualified professional before concluding that big trees are inherently dangerous. Our big trees are beautiful and they play an important role in our ecosystem. They deserve our care and protection.
Yes ! I hope the City Council steps up . The tree code recommended by the Planning Board needs to be improved upon. A tree code should address all the trees in a city, not just the few trees remaining on the few remaining undeveloped lots .
Concerning trees on private developed lots, we should use economic incentives, offsets, and education about “right tree in right place”.
People want to do the right thing, there is overwhelming public support for saving our forest canopy. But people hate fees, permits and penalties. We should commit to planting
multiple replacement trees for every significant tree lost anywhere, anytime for whatever reason . This will require entering into a partnership with local tree preserve groups such as the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Initiative. This idea is what is known as offsets.
We also need to reassure the 10 percent of Edmonds residents that have water views that we will not be planting a conifer forest in the bowl !
Trees are a valuable shared community resource. They are the easiest way to mitigate climate change because of their carbon sequestering capabilities.
I have hope that we can enact a meaningful tree code that addresses all of the trees in our shared forest canopy. It’s not that hard to do. Most of our neighboring cities have already done it. Let’s get it done ; a complete thorough and sustaiable tree code. So that we can be done with it and move on.
But the current proposed tree code is not that code. It needs to be improved upon to make it something we can be proud of. It needs to be done for our future generations and our planet.
Thank you .
Is there a way to penalize those who clear cut big lots and never use the space? As in leaving it to weeds and vermin? I am speaking about a huge lot at 196th street behind the church. There is just nothing there, where a beautiful forest was!!
This may be in Edmonds or Lynnwood, but lets fine those who destroy forests for no apparent reason!!
I think Mr. Phipps is about right on with his take on all this tree business. To expand on his comment about the view issue, I would add that the only reason about 9% of the 10% of us folks in the Bowl with a water view, have that view is because all the big trees have been cut down to build rather large homes on rather small lots. This isn’t criticism; it’s a statement of fact.
The only true water view property in Edmonds is along Sunset and Railroad Ave’s where the tree canopy ended due to the Salish Sea, the railroad land steal of the 1800s, and commercial logging starting out from that vicinity. Most of Edmonds’ water views have been manufactured with chain saws. That “tree canopy” is never coming back with or without an ill advised “tree code” which is a euphemism for “I got mine but you don’t deserve yours because you are destroying the environment.” As now constituted, it’s Edmonds’ brand hypocrisy at it’s most blatant and will achieve nothing except permits, fines and bureaucracy.