Edmonds Planning Board Meeting: Tree Code Update and Canopy Goal - February 26, 2026

The Edmonds Planning Board met on February 26, 2026, to continue discussions on the 2026 Tree Code Update. The board heard public comments, debated citywide canopy cover goals, and provided direction on landmark tree definitions and code consolidation. Key decisions included setting a 35% canopy cover goal within 10 years while maintaining no net loss, and adopting species-specific landmark tree sizes.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kathleen Sears thanked the board for their work and recommended a citywide canopy coverage goal of 35% within 10 years, and a non-one-size-fits-all definition for landmark trees based on species.
• Pam Piar urged the board to incorporate climate co-benefits into the tree code definitions to align with the Climate Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
• Barbara Stiller expressed support for increasing the tree canopy and commended the board.
• Mia Rue, a student, supported tree protection and noted the importance of shade and wildlife habitat.
• A speaker (name not given) asked for stronger definitions for hazard tree and nuisance tree to prevent misuse, citing the “Big Red” redwood removal as an example.
• A speaker (likely from the focus group) recommended a base size of 26 inches DBH for landmark trees, with a species-specific table for native trees, to protect older trees that provide the most benefits.
• Kyle McIntyre supported the definition recommendations in the packet and noted that 8–10 noble firs had been cut down on their street, emphasizing the need for preservation of landmark trees.
• A certified arborist and urban forester supported landmark tree designations based on age class, noting that older trees provide irreplaceable ecological and cultural benefits.
• Roger Pitts, a former board member, suggested using incentives rather than penalties to encourage tree preservation, and warned that landmark tree thresholds could incentivize premature cutting.

Discussion Items

• Staff presented an updated timeline and proposed a more efficient agenda format, including upfront action items, summaries of public feedback, focus group comments, and staff recommendations. The board generally supported this approach but requested sample code language (redlined) rather than a table format, and wanted to see full sections of code to understand context.
• The board discussed the citywide canopy cover goal. Staff presented a table showing current canopy cover at 32.4% and the number of trees needed to achieve various targets. A motion was made to set a goal of 35% canopy cover within 10 years. After debate about including “no net loss” language, the board passed a motion to adopt a 35% canopy cover goal over 10 years, with the additional direction that the city shall aim to maintain at least the current 32.4% canopy cover in each year (no net loss). The motion passed with a majority vote.
• The board discussed consolidation of tree-related code sections into one chapter. Staff noted pros and cons, including legal limitations and the upcoming Unified Development Code project. The board expressed strong support for consolidation as much as feasible now, to improve user clarity and avoid future rework.
• The board discussed landmark tree definitions. After hearing public comments and staff input, a motion was made to define landmark trees using species-specific size thresholds (as shown in the table in the packet) rather than a single size. The motion was seconded and passed. The board also agreed to revisit definitions for hazard tree, nuisance tree, specimen tree, and multi-trunk measurement standards at the next meeting.

Key Outcomes

• Motion passed (majority): Set a citywide tree canopy cover goal of 35% within 10 years, with the direction that the city shall aim to maintain at least the current 32.4% canopy cover in each year (no net loss). Staff will bring back sample code language reflecting this goal.
• Motion passed (majority): Landmark tree definitions shall be based on species-specific size thresholds, as outlined in the table provided in the packet. Staff will bring back draft code language for landmark trees and other related definitions (hazard tree, nuisance tree, specimen tree, multi-trunk measurement).
• Direction given: Consolidate tree-related code sections into one chapter as much as feasible, with the understanding that legal and practical limitations may apply.
• Meeting extended: The board voted to extend the meeting until 9:10 PM to complete the agenda.
• Next steps: The board will continue discussion on definitions at the March 11, 2026 meeting, and staff will provide sample code language and summaries for each key code decision going forward.