Edmonds Planning Board Regular Meeting – June 15, 2026

The Edmonds Planning Board met in hybrid format in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA. The meeting opened at 7:02 PM and adjourned at about 9:07 PM. The board approved prior minutes, heard public comment, considered House Bill 1757 commercial-to-residential conversions, and continued the 2026 tree code update. Note: the agenda and transcript date this meeting June 10, 2026, while the supplied meeting timestamp is June 15, 2026; this summary uses the supplied date.

Opening, Roll Call, and Minutes

• The meeting began with a land acknowledgment recognizing the Snohomish (Sdohobsh) people and the Tulalip Tribes.
• Roll call was taken. Present: Steven Lee, Nick Maxwell, John Jesson, John Milkey, Bristol Ellington, Danielle Decoto, and Lee Hankins. Judy Gladstone was absent and excused. Chair Lauren Golemby presided.
• There was no separate consent calendar. A motion to approve the May 27, 2026 Planning Board minutes passed unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Karen Barnes, an Edmonds resident, commented on the tree code’s fee-in-lieu/tree fund. She requested that the city remove the cap on fee-in-lieu payments, require those payments to be used for tree replacement rather than tree removal, and spend them promptly. She said the current cap can make payments smaller than the actual damage and remediation cost.
• A commenter who said she was correcting a Friends of Edmonds Trees memo stated that the group supports using fee-in-lieu funds only for planting trees and believes the city needs a separate maintenance fund, including from fines. She pointed to Lynnwood’s tree voucher program as an example to consider.
• One resident, referred to by a later speaker as Pam, said she had attended many tree code meetings and recommended the board take a final look at the complete package of decisions before moving forward.
• Deborah Ashland, an Edmonds resident, said she did not support applying different tree code requirements based on whether a property has existing trees. She proposed a framework separating non-development requirements from development tree-density credits, reducing the residential addition threshold from 500 square feet to 200 square feet, subjecting all land uses to the tree code, and requiring a tree retention amount in addition to minimum credits. She noted Bellevue’s tree canopy increased 2.1% from 2011 to 2021.
• Natalie Rever, representing the Master Builders Association and its more than 2,500 members working in both counties, urged the board to finish a permanent tree code, not continue under interim status. She said a successful code should prioritize preserving significant healthy trees and recognize housing, infrastructure, safety, and reasonable private-property use. She said Edmonds needs 9,000 new housing units in the next 20 years and is about 5,000 behind, and cited Snohomish County’s code as an example with a 30% canopy goal that is on target for 38% and 100% compliance from the development and builder community.
• No online attendees raised their hands for public comment.

New Business — House Bill 1757: Commercial-to-Residential Conversions

• Senior planner Gwen Wokan and planning staff presented. House Bill 1757, effective July 27, 2025, requires cities to allow conversion of existing commercial buildings — generally buildings with a certificate of occupancy for at least three years — into residential uses. Staff said the city will not meet the June 30, 2026 compliance deadline.
• The bill allows ground-floor residential units unless a property is on a designated “major pedestrian corridor.” Staff proposed the following definition: a planned or existing public street, walkway, or public right-of-way designated by the city as a major pedestrian corridor because of its identified role in providing safe, comfortable, accessible, and connected pedestrian access to transit, commercial areas, civic destinations, public spaces, or other pedestrian-oriented amenities while supporting active street-level opportunities.
• Staff proposed an MPC map based on transportation mobility, connectivity, active frontage, transit, bicycle and sidewalk networks, and safe routes to school. The map is intended to preserve existing ground-floor commercial requirements in downtown, neighborhood centers/hubs, and the commercial waterfront.
• Board discussion included questions about why MPCs extend beyond commercial districts. Staff explained that the MPC is a transportation definition, not a land-use tool, and could support future sidewalk and safe-routes planning. One board member expressed concern about vacant storefronts and said well-designed ground-floor residential can be better than a long-vacant commercial space. Another warned that without action, HB 1757 could supersede local zoning and undermine the commercial core.
• The board passed a motion to adopt the proposed major pedestrian corridor definition and establish the MPC map, with refinements to specific street designations or the definition to be discussed at the next meeting.

Unfinished Business — 2026 Tree Code Update

• Staff said this was the last meeting where staff would seek direction; starting June 24, the board would review draft code top to bottom. Staff recapped prior direction: a 35% citywide canopy-cover goal, a landmark tree definition at 24-inch trunk diameter plus smaller diameters for some species, no-development removal allowances, and a tree-density-credit approach for development.
• Staff’s recap listed no-development removal allowances of one, two, or three trees per 12 months depending on property size. Several board members said they had voted for one tree per lot per year. Staff said the table in attachment 2 came from prior minutes and could be revisited in draft code.
• The board directed staff to explore a permit process to exceed the one-tree-per-year allowance for non-development removals. The motion passed, with Nick Maxwell voting no.
• Tree-density-credit applicability was the main unresolved item. Staff used a 500-square-foot disturbed-area/footprint threshold consistent with other Edmonds codes. Above the threshold, remodels and site improvements would require a tree retention plan and tree-density credits; below it, removal would trigger a replacement schedule. Staff used Kirkland-style calculations as an example: 50 credits per acre on an 8,500-square-foot lot equals roughly 10 new trees; retaining an 18-inch native conifer could earn 1.5x credits, reducing the number of new trees needed.
• The board adopted a motion that tree-density credits apply to all remodels and site improvements over 500 square feet, requiring planting up to the minimum TDC even on sites with no existing trees. It passed 5–2, with Nick Maxwell and Lee Hankins voting no.
• The board then passed a motion that projects under 500 square feet would trigger a tree replacement schedule if a tree was removed, rather than a full TDC requirement. The vote was 6–0–1, with Steven Lee abstaining.

Key Outcomes

• Approved the May 27, 2026 meeting minutes.
• Adopted the proposed “major pedestrian corridor” definition and directed staff to prepare the MPC map and code amendments; board refinements will be discussed on June 24.
• Directed staff to explore a non-development permit process for exceeding the one-tree-per-year removal allowance.
• Confirmed that remodels and site improvements over 500 square feet are subject to tree-density-credit requirements (5–2).
• Confirmed that projects under 500 square feet require a tree replacement schedule only if a tree is removed (6–0–1).
• Extended agenda items: staff will update the City Council on June 23, bring tree code draft code on June 24, and seek a recommendation on HB 1757 on July 8; the board’s recess begins August 26.