Edmonds Tree Board has vacancies; applications due Dec. 3

The Edmonds Citizens’ Tree Board has five member positions that will be vacant by the end of 2021. The city is seeking applications for those positions and any other Tree Board positions that become available in the near future. The application form is available online here or by emailing jana.spellman@edmondswa.gov

The Citizens’ Tree Board encourages the planting, protecting and maintaining of trees for long-term community benefit. Tree Board meetings are held the first Thursday of each month starting at 6 p.m. and currently are conducted via Zoom.

Members also have the option of assisting with special events such as tree planting for Arbor Day.

Board members must live within the Edmonds city limits. Residents from different watersheds and neighborhoods within the city are welcome. Preferred interests or professional backgrounds include urban forestry, horticulture, and habitat enviroscaping. Anyone is welcome to apply.

Each Tree Board member is appointed by a city councilmember. All appointments must be confirmed by a majority of the city council.

More information about the Tree Board is on the city’s website.

You can also receive an application by callling the Development Services Department at 425.771.0220. Persons leaving a voicemail message should remember to include their name, mailing address and ZIP code.

Applications must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. Friday, Dec. 3, 2021. Submittal information is included on the application form.


  1. I thank the people who have served on this board and are now departing. I can’t imagine anything more frustrating than being tasked to “encourage” the protecting and maintaining of trees without the power to do so against development.

  2. What we really need is a tree board tasked with managing a city fund composed of environmental grants, private donations, and some taxation to buy up already treed vacant properties or critical water shed properties for neighborhood parks and in city tree and wild life preserves. What we have is a city government and a tree board messing around with private property rights and policies that just got a bunch of good sized trees cut down ahead of moratoriums and penalties. Well meaning actions don’t always bring great results.

  3. Suggestion: I would recommend that whomever is responsible for recruiting volunteers for this Tree Board be very clear in their recruitment advertising about one thing: If I am not mistaken, the Tree Board is NOT responsible for writing the Tree Code. This is done by City Staff and approved by the City Council. The Tree Board is only an “advisory” group that has no governing power.
    The reason I suggest this is that given how emotional the community has become regarding the Tree Code, some potentially valuable local talent may not wish to participate in the Board if they have the mistaken notion that this group is in any way responsible for the politically charged Tree Code. Again, the Tree Board does not create the Tree Code. If I am wrong, please speak up. I would further encourage anyone interested, to go to the City’s website and check out their page on the Tree Board.

  4. Thanks, Chris. there have often been misunderstandings about what the Tree board does and doesn’t do.

    The Tree board is advisory only. The board has put out pamphlets about pruning and information about smaller trees for the urban garden. The group has also planted trees and participated in a booth at the Garden Market.

    City Council makes the final decisions on many tree related actions.

  5. In fairness, I’d be happy to hear or read what the tree board’s official stance was on tree cutting moratoriums, fines and such that they presented for consideration to the city council prior to it’s recent action. If I’ve misrepresented their views in my comment in any way, I sincerely apologize.

    My intent is not to disparage good folks like Barbara Chase and others that serve on the board. I did predict publicly at the time that the somewhat draconian tree codes would be a minor disaster and I can’t see any reason to think any differently now. I agree very much in the concept of trying to preserve as much of what we have left as we can, but I also believe in a proper, fair and common sense way to do it. I also believe that suddenly being worried about tree canopy, when most of the big trees have been cut down for water views is hypocritical and a bit dishonest. We now have what we have promoted for years, for whatever reasons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.