Edmonds Planning Board Meeting: Tree Code Update, April 23, 2026

Note: The agenda lists the meeting date as April 22, 2026, but the provided transcript and user instruction indicate the meeting occurred on April 23, 2026. This summary uses the April 23 date as specified.

The Edmonds Planning Board held a regular hybrid meeting on April 23, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the Brackett Room, City Hall, to discuss the 2026 Tree Code Update (Project #AMD2026-0001). The board approved previous meeting minutes, heard public testimony, and deliberated on three code framework approaches for regulating tree removals on improved (non-development) properties. Key decisions included prohibiting removal of healthy landmark trees and requiring replacements for all significant tree removals.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes (April 8, 2026): The board approved the minutes with modifications: strikeout of a sentence about Seaview zoning, correcting "dual accessory dwelling unit" to "detached accessory dwelling unit," and correcting the name of the new board member from John Milky to John Jesson. The motion passed 3-0-1 (three yes, one abstention from Steven Lee).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kathleen Sears (Edmonds resident): Urged a conservative tree removal allowance (one tree per 12 months) and questioned the statement that administrative time for homeowner tree removals should be avoided. She also asked the board to reconsider whether nuisance tree removals should require replacements.
• Kyle McIntyre (Edmonds resident): Cited Seattle's 2023 tree ordinance, noting that most canopy loss occurs on residential properties and that Seattle now limits removal of trees 12 inches or greater and requires replacement even for hazard trees.
• Karen Barnes (Edmonds resident, 14 years): Advocated for a strong, enforceable tree code addressing private property, noting that neighboring cities (Seattle, Shoreline, Lynnwood, Kirkland) have more comprehensive codes. She emphasized the need to protect canopy under the Growth Management Act.
• Laura Hine (Edmonds resident): Opposed any removal of healthy landmark trees, argued that replacements should be required for all removals, and shared a personal anecdote about a tree illegally removed in Kirkland to illustrate the need for enforcement.
• Deborah Ashland (online, Edmonds resident): Supported restricting landmark tree removals (except for hazards), recommended quantity-based replacements by tree size, a minimum 35% existing tree threshold per site, and a frequency limit of three removals per 36 months. She also provided a memo with detailed calculations.

Discussion Items

• 2026 Tree Code Update, Project #AMD2026-0001: Staff planner Deb presented three code framework approaches for regulating tree removals not associated with development:

  1. Clearing and Grading Permit Approach: A permit allowing a maximum number of tree removals at once (e.g., 6 or 10 trees).
  2. Tree Removal Allowance Approach: An over-the-counter allowance (e.g., 1-2 trees per 12 months) with no permit or fee for the allowance; exceeding the allowance triggers a permit.
  3. Tree Density Credit Threshold Approach: A points-based system based on trunk diameter, where a minimum number of credits must be maintained on the lot; removals below the threshold require replanting.

  The board discussed the pros and cons of each approach, using a hypothetical scenario of the "Smith family" with a 7,500 sq ft lot and five trees. Members expressed concerns about the complexity and arbitrariness of the tree density credit approach and agreed to focus on the tree removal allowance approach. They also considered a hybrid model where a low allowance (e.g., one tree per year) could be exceeded via a permit with replacement requirements.

• Definition of Landmark Trees: The board revisited the size threshold, with previous discussion leaning toward 24 inches minimum diameter and a species list. This remained under consideration for future refinement.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Prohibit Healthy Landmark Tree Removals: John Milky moved, and Lauren Golembiwski seconded, to prohibit removal of healthy landmark trees unless they meet hazard or nuisance criteria. The motion passed with one nay (1-0? The transcript indicates one nay, but the exact tally is not recorded; the motion carried).
• Motion to Require Replacements for All Significant Tree Removals: A motion (mover not specified) to require replacement trees for every significant tree removed was seconded and passed unanimously. (Significant trees were defined as those between 6 inches and the landmark threshold, though the 6-inch threshold was later debated; the board leaned toward a 12-inch minimum for replacement triggers but did not finalize.)
• Direction for Draft Code: The board directed staff to develop draft code based on a tree removal allowance approach with a base allowance of one significant tree per 12 months, with a permit process for exceeding that allowance (subject to replacement requirements and a fee). The allowance number and replacement ratios will be refined in future meetings. The board also indicated that landmark trees should not be removable under any allowance.
• Next Steps: The board will shift to discussing tree regulations for development properties at the next meeting, building on existing code. The interim ordinance protecting landmark trees (approved by City Council) remains in effect until October 2026.

Adjournment

The meeting was extended by 15 minutes and adjourned at 9:12 PM.