Edmonds council advances limited tree-code edits as residents press for broader review

Edmonds City Council members discussed a set of narrowly scoped amendments to the city's tree-protection code on Tuesday, hearing residents urge a broader, science-based overhaul while staff recommended limited legal fixes and a new optional method to calculate replacement obligations.

Residents urged delay. "My goal is to have a comprehensive look at this code and to end up with a consistent defensible code," said Deborah Ashland, an Edmonds resident, during audience comment. Arlene Williams, another resident, asked councilors to "wait for an urban forester to be hired to fix the code," saying several proposed changes could weaken protections for large trees.

Why it matters: The amendments are framed as a short-term response to legal issues raised in recent litigation; council and staff said a separate, broader landmark-tree and private-property tree-code review is already planned and will require an urban-forest planner. Some residents warned piecemeal changes could produce inconsistent rules and unintended canopy loss under recent land-use pressures.

What staff proposed: Planning staff and the city attorney described edits the city calls "minor" but legally focused. Planning development staff member Mike Kludson said the intent is "to just address legal issues that have arisen over the last couple of years from a recent case" and not to replace the larger landmark-tree code work already underway. The city attorney outlined the key changes: clarifying mitigation language, making fee provisions internally consistent, removing a requirement that replacement trees be planted only inside the city until a process for off-site mitigation exists, and raising the maintenance bond from two to five years to allow longer establishment and inspection time.

Individualized determinations and appraisals: The draft adds an optional "individualized determination" that allows an applicant, at its expense, to hire a qualified professional to quantify the environmental value of trees being removed and propose a tailored replacement plan intended to yield equivalent value within 20 years. The attorney said the process would include peer review and a requirement that "at least 50% of that environmental value must be replaced on-site." The code also proposes that an appraisal not be required for trees over 24 inches DBH when an applicant already reaches the maximum fee-in-lieu amount; residents called that a possible incentive to remove large trees rather than preserve them.

Public concerns and staff response: Speakers asked for consistent fees and benchmarks tied to other cities' practices. Anne Christiansen referenced Lynnwood's approach to thresholds and lack of a maximum fee-in-lieu as an example. Several commenters said the city should require appraisals for very large trees and expand use of conservation-subdivision tools to retain trees on new developments. Planning staff said the proposed individualized-determination option mirrors other code areas such as impact fees, where an applicant can present a site-specific analysis instead of using a formulaic default.

Next steps: Staff said the landmark-tree and fuller code updates will continue alongside hiring an urban-forest planner; a formal public hearing and additional revisions were expected to follow the public comment period and Planning Board input. Council members signaled support for keeping legally necessary fixes in place now while collecting more public input for a comprehensive rewrite.

Ending: The council allotted fuller review and follow-up, with the planning department and city attorney noting they will return with refined language after the public hearing and additional outreach. Residents asked that the city standardize appraisal methods and consider limiting off-site mitigation until rules for planting location are established.