Edmonds City Council Regular Meeting – September 8, 2026

The City Council of Edmonds held a regular meeting on September 8, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers. The meeting included a proclamation, a finance update, audience comments, a public hearing on tree code amendments, and two council business items: unlicensed food vendors and the Deer Creek Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) PFAS study. All council members and the mayor were present.

Consent Calendar

• Approved unanimously: minutes from previous meetings, resolutions recognizing the 136th anniversary of Edmonds and commending student representative Vivian Liao, payroll and benefit checks (Aug 1-15 and Aug 16-31), appointment of 15 members to the Fiscal Sustainability Task Force, revisions to the WWTP Senior Laboratory Technician job description, award of the Yost & Seaview Reservoirs Repairs and Upgrades construction contract, acceptance of a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant agreement for the Edmonds Marsh preliminary design, authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications for the same project, claim checks and wire payments, and renewal of the UW event contract.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Margie Fields (Edmonds resident) expressed concern about the Deer Creek Aquifer and urged caution regarding stormwater infiltration into drinking water, noting that existing data are insufficient to determine safety.
• Joe Scordino (Edmonds resident) called for improved council process and transparency, stating that the tree code is a “mess” and that residents feel unheard.
• Bob Danson (General Manager, Olympic View Water and Sewer District) acknowledged the Deer Creek PFAS study and said the district is reviewing the report, particularly regarding stormwater infiltration and aquifer protection.

Presentations

• Proclamation for Puget Sound Starts Here Month – Mayor Mike Rosen proclaimed September 2026 as Puget Sound Starts Here Month in Edmonds. Stormwater Engineer Ryan Hogue emphasized the importance of local actions (e.g., restoring habitats, cleaning catch basins) to protect Puget Sound.
• Mayor’s Finance Update – Mayor Rosen reported that Finance Director Gould has returned, the city is deep into budget work while implementing new software (Tyler), and the June financial report is in the packet. A budget retreat is scheduled for September 11.

Public Hearing – Tree Code Amendments (AMD2026-0001)

The public hearing was opened to receive comments on the proposed tree code update, which has been under development since 2021. Planning Manager Brad Shipley and Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers presented two versions of the draft code and noted that over 75 council member questions had been addressed. Many residents spoke in favor of strengthening tree protections. Key points from speakers:

• Georgina (Edmonds resident) questioned the accuracy of canopy data (32% figure) and urged emphasis on retaining landmark trees, especially in multifamily developments to mitigate heat impacts for underserved communities.
• John Merske (Friends of Edmonds Trees) argued that regulating trees on private property is standard land use practice and necessary to meet the city's 35% canopy goal, since most canopy sits on single-family residential land.
• Lou Larie (Edmonds resident) used the removal of “Big Red” (a 100-year-old Coast Redwood) as an example of the code’s failure, requesting clear language to prevent removal via landscape plans and requiring arborist assessment and analysis of alternatives before removal.
• Barb Steller (Edmonds resident) supported retention over replanting and fee-in-lieu, urging high fees to discourage clear-cutting and establishment of minimum retention requirements.
• Dennis Weaver (Boardwalk Condominiums) supported Friends of Edmonds Trees and recommended requiring HOAs to prove authority to apply for tree removal permits.
• Deborah Ashland (Edmonds resident) criticized Version 4 of the code for reducing tree density credit (TDC) requirements, arguing that it incentivizes replanting over retention and will not achieve the 35% canopy goal. She noted that a 2,000 sq ft threshold for development activity is too high.
• Laura Hine (Edmonds resident) urged protection of landmark and significant trees, linking the tree code to honoring the land acknowledgement.
• Arlene Williams (Edmonds resident) raised concerns about arbitrary director discretion over fines, use of photographs instead of arborist reports for hazard tree permits, the increase in development threshold from 500 to 2,000 sq ft, and legal agreements exempting replanting in critical areas.
• Royal Walls (Edmonds resident, park steward) emphasized the loss of Big Red and called for protection of heritage trees, as well as planting of appropriate native species that won’t obstruct views.
• Cameronack (longtime Edmonds resident, scientist) presented preliminary research showing a possible 0.5% to 3% canopy loss from 2016-2024, but cautioned that the science is not settled and called for more transparent data.
• Gayla Schumach (Edmonds resident) urged that the code protect landmark trees on private property, as the current draft does not.
• Pam Cower (Edmonds resident) criticized the 2,000 sq ft threshold and the reduced TDC, stating the code will not achieve the 35% canopy goal. She called for return to 500 sq ft threshold and minimum retention requirements.
• Kyle McIntyre (Edmonds homeowner) argued that the fee-in-lieu amount must be high enough ($2,615/credit for a 5-credit scale) to deter removal, or the code will go backwards from current fees.
• Natalie Rever (Master Builders Association) asked for predictable code, less director discretion, and meaningful incentives for preservation. She noted that public works is exempt from many requirements.
• Joe Scordino (second comment) challenged the city to commit to increasing its own canopy and stop cutting trees.
• Janelle (Edmonds resident, tree board member) suggested incentives (tax credits, stormwater credits) instead of punitive measures, and argued that tree loss is not happening in single-family zones.
• Gabriel (Lynnwood resident) supported incentives and noted that climate change is already killing shallow-rooted trees.
• Gary Nelson (60-year Edmonds resident) commended Deborah Powers, supported the direction on nuisance trees, and asked that parks and public works be explicitly exempt from permit requirements (as in earlier versions) since “utility agencies” is undefined.

Councilmember Olson suggested that another public hearing may be needed before final action, and noted inconsistencies between the Urban Forest Management Plan and the draft code, particularly regarding views and landmark trees.

Council Business – Unlicensed Food Vendors (Third Reading)

The council discussed amendments to Chapter 4.12 of the Edmonds City Code regarding mobile food vendors. Senior Planner Dwayne Walcott presented research on other cities’ approaches, including a mobile food incubator program in Bothell. After several motions and amendments:

• Councilmember Nand moved to direct planning staff to conduct further research on the possibility of creating a pilot program for mobile food vendors. The motion passed 4-3.
• Councilmember Barnett proposed a replacement motion to create two separate policy tracks (licensing/enforcement and location/standards including a pilot program). That motion failed 1-6.
• Council President Dodge moved to direct the pilot project to be only on private property. That motion failed 3-4. Direction was given to staff to return with a simplified approach, including a pilot program, with the public hearing scheduled for October 13.

Council Business – Deer Creek CARA PFAS Source Identification Study

Jeff Teraday (legal) and Brad Shipley introduced the study conducted by EA Engineering. Garrett Lee and Pavan Chala presented findings:

• PFAS in the Deer Creek CARA should be addressed as both a source control and stormwater pathway issue.
• Major sources include weather-exposed materials (coatings, roofing, artificial turf, compost) and atmospheric deposition.
• Stormwater infiltration facilities are pathways, not sources; redirecting stormwater may not eliminate PFAS from the watershed.
• Recommendations: prioritize source control, use a tiered risk-based approach to infiltration, and implement phased monitoring. Councilmembers asked about regulatory approaches, fairness, and whether the data supports a tiered code. Staff indicated more work is needed before bringing regulations forward. Councilmember Payne suggested public education based on the study. The study will be posted on the city website.

Key Outcomes

• Consent agenda adopted unanimously.
• Tree code public hearing held; further deliberation scheduled for council study session on September 9.
• Mobile food vendors: Council directed staff to research a pilot program and return with a simplified approach (motion passed 4-3; subsequent motions on scope failed). The public hearing on the ordinance is set for October 13.
• Deer Creek PFAS study: Discussed; no immediate action taken. Staff will develop regulatory recommendations for future consideration.