Edmonds Planning Board Meeting - March 26, 2026

The Edmonds Planning Board met on March 26, 2026, starting at 7:00 PM, to discuss tree code amendments for private property tree removals not associated with development. The board considered public testimony, reviewed regulatory approaches, and provided direction to staff on a hybrid framework combining a removal allowance for significant trees with a permit-based system for larger removals and landmark tree removals. The meeting adjourned without completing the discussion, which will continue at the April 8, 2026 meeting.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The board approved the minutes from the March 11, 2026 meeting with corrections (adding Nick as the motion maker for January 28 minutes and correcting Isabel Jones' attendance status). Motion carried unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Ben Mark (consulting arborist, former tree board member) expressed support for a tree density credit system over a tree-for-tree count or canopy-based system, noting that density credits encourage retention of larger, higher-ecological-value trees. He cited Kirkland, Medina, and other communities as examples.
• Deborah Ashland (Edmonds resident) supported defined quantity replacements and the tree density credit method as the best ways to achieve the city's 35% canopy goal. She opposed removal allowances, stating they degrade canopy, and urged not to protect landmark trees at the expense of significant trees (e.g., 20-inch trees). She also cautioned against equating hazard and nuisance trees, recommending nuisance removals be subject to replacement requirements.
• Linda Firkingstead (Edmonds resident) expressed strong opposition to the tree ordinance, arguing it violates property rights under the Washington State and U.S. Constitutions. She recounted her family's experience with a seven-year permit process that was blocked by tree replacement requirements, devaluing their land. She urged the board to consider constitutional protections.

Discussion Items

• Tree Code Update (Project #AMD2025-0006): Staff presented options for regulating tree removals on developed properties without development. The current code prohibits removal of landmark trees (≥30 inches) except for hazard or nuisance, but allows unlimited removal of significant trees (6–24 inches). The board discussed two main approaches:
  • Removal Allowance: A set number of trees (e.g., two per 12 months) that can be removed without a permit, with replacement encouraged but not required. This is used in Kirkland pre-2021.
  • Tree Density Credit: A point system based on tree trunk diameter, requiring a minimum number of credits per lot. Staff noted this is more complex and typically used for development, not individual property owner removals.
  • The board expressed support for a hybrid approach: a small allowance for significant trees (e.g., 1-2 per year, potentially varying by lot size) with a permit required for exceeding the allowance. Landmark trees would not be included in the allowance; removal of a healthy landmark tree would require a permit, possibly using a tree density credit to evaluate the impact. Hazard tree removals would not require replacement, but nuisance removals would. The board did not finalize specific numbers or criteria, requesting staff to provide detailed scenarios and examples at the next meeting.
  • The board agreed to align landmark tree regulation with the interim ordinance (prohibiting removal except for hazard/nuisance) but left open the possibility of allowing healthy landmark tree removal under a permit with tree density credits. Further discussion is needed.

Key Outcomes

• Direction to Staff: The board reached consensus on the following:
  1. Landmark tree removals on developed properties should generally be prohibited except for hazard or nuisance (consistent with the interim ordinance), but staff should explore permitting healthy landmark tree removals under a tree density credit framework.
  2. Significant tree removals should be regulated using a hybrid approach: a small allowance (e.g., 1-2 trees per year, possibly scaled by lot size) without a permit, with a permit required for exceeding the allowance. Replacement requirements for permitted removals will be discussed later.
  3. Hazard tree removals (landmark or significant) should not require replacement; nuisance tree removals should require replacement.
  4. Property size should be considered in setting allowance amounts (e.g., larger lots might have a higher allowance).
• Next Steps: The tree code discussion will continue at the April 8, 2026 meeting, which will also address frontage types and building orientation for middle housing. Staff will prepare graphics and scenarios to illustrate the hybrid approach. The tree code update is on track for completion by June 2026.
• Meeting Extension: A motion to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 PM failed (2 yes, 3 nays), so the board adjourned on time.