Edmonds City Council Study Session: Tree Code Amendments and Executive Session – September 10, 2026

The Edmonds City Council met in study session to continue work on the tree code amendments (AMD2026-0001, Fifth Reading and Beyond), focusing on public feedback from the previous night's public hearing and possible further code changes. The meeting opened with an executive session on litigation; no formal action was taken. Note: the agenda packet lists the meeting as September 9, 2026 at 3:00 PM, while the meeting record timestamp is 2026-09-10 17:30:00+00:00; this summary uses the latter date.

Executive Session

• Council moved into executive session pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) to discuss litigation or potential litigation with legal counsel representing the city.
• The session was expected to last 16 minutes; Council reconvened at 4:15 PM, and no action was taken.

Public Comments & Testimony

• At the previous evening's public hearing, approximately 20 people spoke in person, and multiple additional comments were submitted via email.
• Staff and council summarized the themes of that public feedback: the code's complexity, length, and inconsistencies; discretionary versus more predictable code requirements; and view and view covenant concerns.

Discussion Items

• Tree Code Amendments (AMD2026-0001) – Fifth Reading and Beyond:
  • Deb, the project manager, explained that the study session was intended for staff to hear council feedback on the prior night's public hearing and to determine what further code changes staff should consider. Staff will seek direction from council at the September 22, 2026 meeting.
  • Delays: the tree board and planning board each took additional time, pushing the schedule later in the year than anticipated; October 6, 2026 was identified as a potential date to extend the interim ordinance.
  • Version 3 vs. Version 4: several council members observed that some planning board recommendations in Version 3 did not carry into Version 4 and requested better communication on why changes were made. Staff and Jeff Charity explained that Version 4 was developed from council's August 11th discussion, because the same Version 3 shown at the planning board public hearing could not be shown again at the council public hearing; any revisions intended for adoption had to appear in the public hearing packet. The schedule was extended from July 22 to August 12, shortening the time between the planning board recommendation and the first public hearing.
  • Council members' positions and suggestions included:
    • Support for incentives, especially for public owners who voluntarily retain mature trees, using tree fund and fee-in-lieu dollars (for example, a stormwater fee reduction) to encourage retention.
    • Caution that monetary incentives are 'ripe for unscrupulous activity' and that financial incentives are harder to administer than development-based incentives.
    • Retention of the tree risk assessment requirement, performed by an ISA-certified professional.
    • Concern that the code's 2,000 square foot threshold is treated as non-development, which is not how the development code treats it.
    • View easements should remain a civil matter between property owners, not enforced by city staff; the code should allow flexibility where an easement is in effect without exempting properties from the code or from tree replacement requirements.
    • A question about how fee-in-lieu dollars are ensured to translate back into tree canopy, referencing the city attorney's statement.
    • A suggestion to adopt a more strategic framework with tree retention as the first priority, followed by the activities the city will undertake to retain trees.
    • A council member relayed that Friends of the Edmonds Trees reported three people independently using two different AI models to find inconsistencies within the code and between the code and the Urban Forest Management Plan, with all three converging on similar refinements; the group offered to share their prompts with staff.
  • Staff described two enforcement tracks: clear violations, especially involving critical areas or tree protection plans, versus inadvertent removal where a permitted path exists; the city is generally not punitive when property owners self-report. For dead tree removals, staff historically accepted photos showing a tree that was clearly brown, leafless, and dead.
  • Process note: one council member expressed concern that the informal format was being monopolized and that all council members should receive equitable time to share perspectives, stating that continuing to abuse the process was not a fair or good use of taxpayer time and money.

Items for Future Consent

• Addendum No. 1 to the 2026 Summer Market Event Agreement, adding Winter Market dates (Parks and Recreation). First reading; listed for a future consent agenda.

Key Outcomes

• No formal action was taken; the meeting was a study session.
• Staff will prepare draft code changes and seek council direction at the September 22, 2026 meeting.
• Two more public hearings are anticipated before adoption.
• October 6, 2026 was penciled in as a potential date for extending the interim ordinance.
• Council members requested clearer communication on the differences between planning board recommendations (Version 3) and staff's Version 4.
• The study session adjourned at 4:50 PM.