City attorney Jeff Paraday presented proposed amendments to the Edmonds tree code and asked the Planning Board to review the package and forward recommendations to the council after further staff work.

Paraday described the changes as largely procedural and aimed at clarifying the code and addressing issues that arose during recent enforcement and litigation. "Most of these are not particularly substantive. They're more of a procedural nature," Paraday said.

Key proposals include:
- An individualized-determination process that allows applicants to hire a qualified professional, at their expense, to calculate an alternative replacement ratio based on environmental functions (carbon sequestration, air-quality benefit, stormwater mitigation, shade, biodiversity, erosion control). The professional's calculation would be peer-reviewed; if the peer review recommends a more burdensome plan, the applicant could appeal to the hearing examiner.
- Removal of language that suggested replacement trees could be planted off-site outside Edmonds' jurisdiction until the city develops a formal off-site planting program.
- Clarification that an appraisal is required for significant trees (those above the diameter threshold) but that an appraisal may be unnecessary where a maximum fee-in-lieu already applies.
- Removal of the notice-on-title requirement; staff said the notice had created unanticipated problems and was not performing as intended.
- A longer and larger maintenance bond for replacements: increasing bonding from two to five years and increasing the bond amount (proposal discussed: from 15% to 50%) to ensure replanting and account for inflation.

Paraday read the individualized-determination language into the record and explained that qualified professionals should "use best available science to quantify the environmental value of the trees that will be removed. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the qualified professional must make some effort to quantify its findings." He said the plan must show at least 50% of the environmental value is replaced on-site within 20 years, or the balance can be achieved off-site via a fee-in-lieu subject to peer review.

Board members asked clarifying questions about who would pay for appraisals and peer reviews and how "peer review" would be defined. Several board members and staff said the practical experience has been that developers default to the city’s maximum fee-in-lieu rather than pursue appraisals. Board member Nick Maxwell suggested updating terminology from "DBH (diameter at breast height)" to "DSH (diameter at standard height)" for inclusivity; staff indicated the change could be handled in a minor-code clean-up.

Paraday said he presented the package for discussion and expected staff to return with any requested edits; the board did not take formal action that night but expected to consider a recommendation at a subsequent meeting. "We're not looking for action tonight…you've got until your next meeting to make a recommendation if you need more time," Paraday said.