Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edmonds public hearing backs interim ordinance to prohibit removal of certain landmark trees
Summary
After public testimony, council closed the hearing on a one‑year interim ordinance to prohibit removal of specified landmark trees on improved private property and advanced a work plan toward permanent tree code updates.
Edmonds held a public hearing June 10 on an interim ordinance that would prohibit removal of certain landmark trees on improved private property while the city develops a permanent tree code.
Council member Susan Payne introduced the ordinance as a one‑year interim measure and described a work plan tied to a target to adopt permanent code by April 30, 2026. Payne said the ordinance continues work begun in 2021 and responds to recent high‑profile removals.
Dozens of residents spoke in favor. Georgina Armstrong, an Edmonds resident, told the council, "This does not have to be an ordinance that pits property rights against tree protection," and called the work plan “its most important element.” Other speakers—Anne Christensen, Deborah Ashland, Gayla Shumake, Ron Eber, Pam Tower and multiple online commenters—urged the council to move forward, pointing to canopy, cooling and habitat benefits and urging stronger penalties for unauthorized removals. Several commenters asked that the threshold for landmark designation be reduced from 30 inches diameter-at-breast height to 24 inches and requested strong enforcement and clear permitting standards.
Speakers representing the Friends of Edmonds Trees and other volunteer groups offered to assist with a landmark‑tree inventory and public outreach. Payne said the hearing completed the final step needed for the interim ordinance and that no council action was required that night; she noted the ordinance was unanimously advanced in April and that the work plan is now in place.
Council members and staff said they will proceed with the code work specified in the interim ordinance exhibit, including clarifying definitions for hazard and nuisance, refining permit procedures and specifying permit types and notice requirements for landmark‑tree removal. Residents asked for clearer exemptions, stronger penalties and use of citizen expertise on the code committee.
The council closed the public hearing; no adoption vote was required at the June 10 meeting because the item completed the public‑input step in the interim process. Staff said they will return with draft permanent code language guided by the work plan.
