OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Edmonds Planning Board Regular Meeting Summary – July 27, 2026

City Council & BoardsMonday, July 27, 2026
BodyEdmonds, Washington
SessionCity Council & Boards
DateMonday, July 27, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:07:10

Transcript — Verbatim
0:05

Cool.

0:08

Now I will call this July 22nd planning board meeting to order at 7.04 p.m.

0:17

Nick, you know the landing colour?

0:20

Would you mind reading that class?

0:21

I do.

0:22

Thank you.

0:22

We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Snohomish people and their successors, the Tolic Trout, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands.

0:34

We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.

0:42

Thank you.

0:44

We will do a quick roll call.

0:48

Nick Maxwell.

0:50

Daniel, Judy Gladstone, Bristol Ellington.

0:54

John Elkey.

0:56

Stephen Lee.

0:57

Yep.

0:57

Lauren Golemski is here.

0:59

And John Jesson is absent and it's used this evening.

1:03

So Bristol becomes a voting member.

1:07

Thank you.

1:10

Our agenda for tonight, we will have audience comments.

1:15

We'll have approval of minutes.

1:17

Then audience comments.

1:20

Administrative, we have no administrative reports.

1:22

Our unfinished business is more on the tree code.

1:28

We have the comprehensive plan, future land meet use map of those Westgate area parcels.

1:36

And then we'll go over our extended agenda and have planning board member comments and get out there on time.

1:46

So our first item is the approval of the July 8th minutes.

1:52

Earlier today, Judy sent out a couple of brief comments that Brad has to share with us so that we don't have to read them all out loud and they uh are here.

2:08

I think Brad has eliminated that first item about whether or not you're online or not.

2:13

I don't recall that.

2:15

I think that dates back to when we first started being online in 2021.

2:21

Oh, okay, because I was appointed in 2020 when everybody was up.

2:26

Um I think that is not typical, and I don't know that it's necessary.

2:34

That's fine.

2:35

Um, so is there a motion to approve the July 8th minutes with the edits shown on the screen as presented by Judy?

2:45

So seconded by Nick.

2:49

Any other discussion?

2:52

All in favor say aye.

2:54

Aye.

2:55

Any nays, none heard, any abstentions, one abstention, John Milky motion passes.

3:05

Okay, we will have uh audience comments, and you guys know the drill.

3:10

Uh you know us, I'll be sure to go.

3:14

Um, if you can uh take the state name, and you have three minutes.

3:20

Thank you.

3:21

Kathleen Sears, Edmund's resident poet has reviewed your subcommittee recommendations, and we appreciate the extensive work you'll put in.

3:30

We have five speakers tonight, and each will speak to one aspect of the draft code that we think still needs attention.

3:39

I will begin with the topic of tree retention requirements, starting with non-development properties.

3:46

Currently, the draft code for non-development has no requirement for any viable significant or landmark trees to be retained without a minimum retention requirement.

3:59

Homeowners can use their allowance to eventually remove all the trees on their property.

4:05

We have spoken previously about the value of existing trees and how long it takes for a newly planted sampling to attain a similar level of ecosystem benefit.

4:16

So I won't repeat that.

4:18

Our full recommendation is that at least one landmark tree or three significant trees being retained.

4:26

This small numbers should provide homeowner flexibility while retaining at least some of the property's critical ecosystem value.

4:36

For properties undergoing development, the draft code does not clearly state the minimum retention requirements.

4:44

Without a clear minimum retention requirement, a developer could remove every tree on a site and satisfy the code through a replacement planting or fee and loop.

5:00

While replacement trees are important, they require decades to provide the canopy green infrastructure, wildlife habit, tap, and carbon storage benefits of existing and mature trees.

5:09

We also believe that fee and loo should always be the very last resort to meet the ret the required credits.

5:18

Your subcommittee is recommended that 50% of the required minimum credits be met by retaining trees on site.

5:26

Well, it supports this, then we see two options.

5:31

One retain all viable trees and setbacks, or two, retain a minimum of 50% or more of the viable trees on site.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Tree Regulations█████████████████████████████████████████████85%
Land Use Regulations████8%
Affordable Housing██3%
Procedural██3%
Zoning1%
Summary of Proceedings

Edmonds Planning Board Regular Meeting Summary – July 27, 2026

The Edmonds Planning Board met on July 27, 2026, per the timestamp provided with the source materials; the agenda and transcript identify the meeting as July 22, 2026. The hybrid regular meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall. The Board approved the July 8, 2026 minutes, heard five public comments on the 2026 Tree Code Update (Project #AMD2026-0001), and made several decisions on tree density credits, replacement credits, fee-in-lieu, and penalties. Several Tree Code items were deferred to the August 5 public hearing and August 12 meeting, and the Westgate Neighborhood Center map item was deferred to August 12.

Approval of Minutes

  • The Board approved the July 8, 2026 minutes with edits circulated by Judy Gladstone; the vote was unanimous in favor, with one abstention (John Elkey).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Kathleen Sears (Edmonds resident): Recommended adding minimum tree-retention requirements for non-development properties (at least one landmark tree or three significant trees) and for development properties; supported a requirement that at least 50% of required tree-density credits be met by retained trees; urged that fee-in-lieu be used only as a last resort and that claims that minimums cannot be met be verified by city staff.
  • Another Edmonds resident (name not stated): Asked for formal definitions of development and non-development using a 500-square-foot disturbance threshold; recommended consistent use of those terms; recommended that hazard-tree assessments be made by an ISA Certified Arborist with Tree Risk Assessment Qualification.
  • Kyle McIntyre (Edmonds homeowner): Opposed the subcommittee's $750-per-credit fee-in-lieu, saying it was too low and below the current code's mitigation value; supported $1,400 per credit or more; urged requiring applicants to maximize on-site retention and exhaust on-site replacement options before fee-in-lieu is approved; cited current-code calculations including an 8,500-square-foot lot capped at $4 per square foot equating to $34,000.
  • Tom Herskey (Edmonds resident; Bowitt): Supported a 24-inch landmark-tree threshold plus a landmark-tree species list, with those species counted at 10 credits for retention and replacement; supported added credit tiers for larger trees but not a 1.5 multiplier for native conifers; supported two replacement credits for native conifers; recommended a four-tier replacement schedule with landmark trees and species-list trees requiring four replacements.
  • Deborah Ashland (Edmonds resident; FOET): Supported the subcommittee's tiered low-density residential tree-density credits as a compromise, but recommended credits 20% higher (for example, 132 credits per acre for a one-unit lot); accepted 30 credits per acre for commercial and mixed use but recommended 44 credits per acre for multifamily; noted the upcoming public hearing on August 5.

Discussion Items – 2026 Tree Code Update

Landmark Tree Replacement Schedule

  • Board members noted the replacement schedule applies mainly to nuisance-tree removals, because landmark trees are otherwise protected from removal, and that hazard-tree removals do not require replacement.
  • A motion to apply the four-to-one replacement tier to all landmark trees, regardless of diameter, passed unanimously. This revised the subcommittee's over-24-inch-DBH trigger.

Tree Density Credits for Low-Density Residential

  • The Board adopted the subcommittee's low-density residential tree-density-credit scale and minimums. As described during discussion, the tiers are 110 credits per acre for single-unit sites, 88 credits per acre for two-to-three-unit sites, and 66 credits per acre for four-unit sites.
  • One public commenter described the tiers as 110 credits for one unit, 88 for two units, and 66 for three-to-four units; the Board discussion used the one-unit / two-to-three-unit / four-unit grouping.

Retention Priority and 50% Minimum

  • After debating whether the priority section alone would prevent a developer from removing most existing trees, the Board voted to remove from the subcommittee package the proposed requirement that 50% of tree-density credits be met by retained trees.
  • The removal was paired with direction to revise the priority and retention language so the operation of tree density credits and the emphasis on retention are clear.

Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Multifamily Tree Density Credits

  • The subcommittee had proposed 30 credits per acre for commercial, mixed-use, and multifamily sites.
  • The Board voted to follow staff's recommendation instead, leaving those site types to existing landscaping requirements rather than adopting a separate tree-density-credit requirement. Judy and John abstained.

Existing Tree Credit Table

  • The Board adopted the revised existing-tree credit table as amended: 26-inch trees = 10 credits, 28-inch trees = 11 credits, and trees 30 inches and above = 12 credits.
  • The amendment avoided the skipped 28-inch increment in the subcommittee's proposed table.

Replacement Tree Credits

  • The Board adopted a motion allowing two replacement credits for preferred trees identified by staff, with native conifers explicitly included at a minimum.
  • The landmark-tree species list was not included because many of those species are difficult to plant successfully.

Fee-in-Lieu and Penalties

  • Members discussed the subcommittee's $750 recommendation, staff's earlier $1,000 figure, the $1,400 figure supported by FOET, and the current code's $2,500-per-tree/appraisal structure with a $4-per-square-foot cap.
  • A motion to set fee-in-lieu at $1,000 per credit failed with five nays.
  • The Board then adopted $1,600 per tree-density credit, based in part on dividing the current $34,000 maximum fee-in-lieu for an 8,500-square-foot lot by the 21 credits required on that lot, which yields roughly $1,619 per credit.
  • The same motion directed that penalties be revised to double the fee-in-lieu amount, following the same scale. The motion passed with one nay.

Fee-in-Lieu Cap

  • The Board voted to remove the existing fee-in-lieu cap of $4 per square foot of lot area.
  • The motion passed despite some nays and two abstentions.

Unresolved Items and August Schedule

  • The Board confirmed that site improvements over 500 square feet should follow the tree-density-credit thresholds tied to the number of dwelling units on the lot (for example, 110 credits for a single-unit lot and 88 credits for a lot with an ADU/two units).
  • Items left for the August 5 public hearing or August 12 meeting include conservation subdivisions, forest management plans, and maintenance agreement versus bond requirements.
  • The Board's Tree Code recommendation is expected to be transmitted to the City Council for its August 11 meeting.

Westgate Neighborhood Center Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map (Second Reading)

  • Listed on the agenda as a second reading, the Westgate future land use map and zoning map amendments were not acted on due to time.
  • Staff said the item would be taken up at the August 12 Planning Board meeting for discussion and recommendation; it would not have a Planning Board public hearing, but the City Council would hold one.
  • The map amendments will be part of the Comprehensive Plan docket and combined into one ordinance before council adoption.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved July 8, 2026 minutes with one abstention.
  • Applied the four-to-one replacement tier to all landmark trees, regardless of diameter.
  • Adopted the low-density residential tree-density-credit table of 110 / 88 / 66 credits per acre.
  • Removed the proposed 50% retention minimum and directed clearer retention-priority and tree-density-credit language.
  • Followed staff's landscaping-requirements approach for commercial, mixed-use, and multifamily sites rather than adding a separate 30-credit-per-acre requirement.
  • Adopted existing-tree credits of 10 at 26 inches, 11 at 28 inches, and 12 at 30 inches and above.
  • Allowed two replacement credits for preferred tree species, including native conifers.
  • Set fee-in-lieu at $1,600 per tree-density credit and directed penalties to be double the fee-in-lieu amount.
  • Removed the $4-per-square-foot fee-in-lieu cap.
  • Deferred action on conservation subdivisions, forest management plans, maintenance agreement versus bond, and the Westgate map item to upcoming meetings.

Meeting Transcript

Cool. Now I will call this July 22nd planning board meeting to order at 7.04 p.m. Nick, you know the landing colour? Would you mind reading that class? I do. Thank you. We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Snohomish people and their successors, the Tolic Trout, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. Thank you. We will do a quick roll call. Nick Maxwell. Daniel, Judy Gladstone, Bristol Ellington. John Elkey. Stephen Lee. Yep. Lauren Golemski is here. And John Jesson is absent and it's used this evening. So Bristol becomes a voting member. Thank you. Our agenda for tonight, we will have audience comments. We'll have approval of minutes. Then audience comments. Administrative, we have no administrative reports. Our unfinished business is more on the tree code. We have the comprehensive plan, future land meet use map of those Westgate area parcels. And then we'll go over our extended agenda and have planning board member comments and get out there on time. So our first item is the approval of the July 8th minutes. Earlier today, Judy sent out a couple of brief comments that Brad has to share with us so that we don't have to read them all out loud and they uh are here. I think Brad has eliminated that first item about whether or not you're online or not. I don't recall that. I think that dates back to when we first started being online in 2021. Oh, okay, because I was appointed in 2020 when everybody was up. Um I think that is not typical, and I don't know that it's necessary. That's fine. Um, so is there a motion to approve the July 8th minutes with the edits shown on the screen as presented by Judy? So seconded by Nick. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays, none heard, any abstentions, one abstention, John Milky motion passes. Okay, we will have uh audience comments, and you guys know the drill. Uh you know us, I'll be sure to go. Um, if you can uh take the state name, and you have three minutes. Thank you. Kathleen Sears, Edmund's resident poet has reviewed your subcommittee recommendations, and we appreciate the extensive work you'll put in. We have five speakers tonight, and each will speak to one aspect of the draft code that we think still needs attention. I will begin with the topic of tree retention requirements, starting with non-development properties. Currently, the draft code for non-development has no requirement for any viable significant or landmark trees to be retained without a minimum retention requirement. Homeowners can use their allowance to eventually remove all the trees on their property. We have spoken previously about the value of existing trees and how long it takes for a newly planted sampling to attain a similar level of ecosystem benefit.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com