Edmonds Planning Board Regular Meeting – March 12, 2026

The Edmonds Planning Board convened on March 12, 2026, at 7:45 PM (originally scheduled for March 11) to discuss unfinished business on the 2026 Tree Code Update, including definitions for landmark, specimen, hazard, nuisance, qualified professional, and multi-trunk tree measurement. The board also received public comments and approved previous meeting minutes. The middle housing code amendment discussion was tabled due to time constraints.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval:
  • January 28, 2026 Regular Meeting minutes: Approved with 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 abstentions.
  • February 25, 2026 Regular Meeting minutes: Approved with revisions (including recording public commenters’ names and cities of residence) as offered by board member Judy. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 abstentions (tally was not fully clear, but the motion carried).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Deborah Ashland (Edmonds resident, 27 years): Presented a memo on landmark tree definitions, suggesting an expanded species list (citing Burien’s exceptional tree code) and emphasizing preservation over replanting due to established trees’ environmental benefits (carbon capture, stormwater, shade). Urged clear replacement requirements.
• Bill Phipps (Edmonds resident, former tree board member): Offered assistance and encouraged the board to consider written comments submitted. Noted the complexity and nuance of tree code work.

Discussion Items

1. 2026 Tree Code Update – Definitions (Unfinished Business)

• Landmark Tree: The board discussed single‑diameter threshold vs. species‑varying diameters. A motion to adopt a flat 24‑inch DBH for all trees with Madrona at 18 inches was made and then withdrawn. General consensus emerged to use a species‑specific table with most trees at 24 inches and Madrona at 18 inches, but the motion was withdrawn to allow further refinement of the full list. The board will continue work on March 25.
• Specimen Tree: The board leaned toward deleting the definition as redundant with landmark tree criteria and too subjective (rarity, form). Some members suggested a future heritage tree program instead. No formal vote taken.
• Hazard Tree: The board agreed to adopt the industry standard (ISA Tree Risk Assessment) as reflected in the sample code rewrite. Staff described over‑the‑counter approval using photographs for obvious hazards to address equity concerns; the definition will be adjusted to include this option.
• Nuisance Tree: Debate centered on whether to retain the definition. Concerns about abuse (e.g., intentional damage to justify removal) were raised. A key argument for retaining nuisance was to provide a path for removing landmark trees causing significant structural damage (e.g., foundation issues). The board instructed staff to tighten the language and return to it, potentially merging nuisance criteria with landmark tree removal rules.
• Qualified Professional: The board reviewed expanding credentials to include Board Certified Master Arborist and other certifications. Issues of enforceability and cost equity were discussed. The topic was left for further input; staff will provide additional analysis by the next meeting.
• Measuring Multi‑trunked Trees: The board supported moving the definition to the DBH/DSH section and using proper mathematical calculation (square root of sum of squares) with clear examples and diagrams to improve usability. Industry standard was endorsed.

2. Substantive Code Amendments – Middle Housing (LDR Zone) This item was not reached due to time constraints and will be carried over to the April 8, 2026 meeting (or later).

Key Outcomes

• Tree Code Definitions: No formal votes were taken, but staff received clear direction on seven definitions. The board will continue the Tree Code Update on March 25, 2026, focusing on remaining definitions and allowed tree removals.
• Middle Housing: Tabled to a future agenda; no action taken.
• Report to Council: Board member Lauren will prepare a draft report of the board’s progress for council; board members to review and respond by Monday, March 16.
• Next Steps: The extended agenda included planning board member comments; no new business was added. The meeting adjourned without setting additional dates beyond the regular March 25 meeting.