Tree Code Update

I attended the 6/2/2026 Learning session. I shared my full comments via email so these are brief. As single unit owners in a large multi-family COA property we are in a grey zone. The code has been difficult to navigate due to our size being more aligned with commercial developed properties, but our needs are more aligned with single family properties. I appreciate the goals set forth in the proposed code changes and hope the final process is understandable and not overly burdensome for homeowners who are not in the professional construction or landscaping business. It is especially hard to find code compliant replacement trees at retail nurseries. I hope the proposed smaller size for single family replacement trees will extend to our situation.

I’ve reviewed the draft definitions, and I’ve annotated a copy with my comments and emailed them separately. Two largest concerns: first) many of the definitions are weak and I don’t see (how written) they support your code and its objective. Many appear to have been copied and pasted from online sources and have language that is not relevant or consistent with other parts of code. That leads to #2: as a tree professional, I’m bound to use ANSI A-300 standards and their accompanying BMPs, yet some definitions use language not consistent with the A-300 or BMPs. This is very confusing.

I am frustrated when code (and its definitions) is out of sync with code mandated methods. This is especially true for pruning and for risk assessment as outlined in the A-300.

I suggest you craft an objectives/purpose section for the definitions. Why are they there? how will you use them? How should I use them?

I look to them for clarity in assisting my client with code compliance. And that is difficult when they use language that is vague or outdated.

Thanks again for your consideration.

I participated in the 6/2/2026 Noon Team Meeting in regard to draft changes to the Tree Code. As a residential homeowner, I dealt with issues related to the existing tree removal permitting system in 2018, 2019 and 2020 and I am interested in modifications to the existing code because of the hassles and delays associated with getting those permits and having to wait over 2 years to plant new trees in my own back yard.

We had a large branch from a tall tree lean up against a neighbor's roof. While we were able to remove the branch, we needed a permit to remove the tree which obviously was not completely healthy. On our property, we were allowed to take down 2 healthy trees a year but in order to take down an obviously unhealthy tree, I was required to hire an arborist. I showed an arborist Redmond's pages long arborist report and I was told that it would cost me between $400 and $700 to have them complete the report. It seemed ridiculous to me that I was being required to pay up to $700 to get a report that would allow me to pay hundreds more to remove the tree that had a significant branch fall on a neighbor's roof. (It would be great if Redmond had an arborist on staff to save citizens hundreds or thousands of dollars in arborist repot fees.)

In addition, we wanted to remove 4 other trees from our back yard in order to plant 12 arborvitae trees. Because of the size of our lot (6022 143rd CT NE), I was allowed to only remove 2 trees a year. So, 3 consecutive Julys I had to fill out a tree removal permit form and deal with the hassle. I was also required to pay a higher fee to have the trees removed at 3 separate occasions rather than doing them all at one time. One of the trees we wanted to take down had a root that was damaging our back fence. Had we just cut out the root, it would have killed the tree and Redmond would have probably fined us for doing that.

What makes this all the more annoying is that we planted most if not all of these trees within a year of our moving into this house in 1987. So, even though we paid to plant the trees, we still needed to get Redmond's permission to remove them.

I can understand Redmond's interest in trees that are at the front of the house that face the street but trees that are in our backyard or trees that we paid to plant should not require a tree permit to remove.

I realize that few if any of my suggestions will be incorporated into the new tree code but I hope that serious consideration will be given to 1) Redmond having an arborist on staff, 2) not requiring multiple tree permits to be obtained for essentially the same project, 3) allowing a resident that wants to remove more trees than their lot size permits to do so if they are planting more replacement trees than they are removing, 4) allow removal of trees whose roots are damaging a fence. and 5) allow the removal of a tree that has had a significant branch fall on a neighbor's house.

Thank you for your consideration of this feedback.

"No exception needed if a Qualified Tree Professional determines the tree is dead, dying, or diseased." Define these terms: dying and diseased. More to the point, is the tree’s useful life as a retained amenity impacted significantly because it is dying or diseased.
Example: Every dogwood, apple and Serviceberry in the PNW is diseased, as are all the madrones. Most ‘diseased’ trees can tolerate some level of ‘disease’ (presence of a fungal/bacterial pathogen) and continue to grow and provide benefit.
I think the better approach is to quantify, using the condition table, a threshold for condemning a tree because it is dying or diseased.

"Hazardous trees may be removed with documentation from a Qualified Tree Professional Define hazardous." Many municipalities use ‘an overall risk rating of high or extreme’ (based on ANSI standards). Even a tree with an overall low risk rating is hazardous.

"Conifer/ Evergreen: Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar,
Western Hemlock, Noble Fir, Shore Pine, etc."
"Deciduous: Big Leaf maple, Red Alder, Pacific Dogwood, etc. "

More clarity here please: the Western larch is a native conifer, and is also deciduous.
Pacific madrone is evergreen, nor is it deciduous

"Retention priority (highest to lowest):
• Culturally Modified Trees
• Heritage Trees
• Landmark Trees
• Trees near critical areas
• Groves
• Perimeter landscaping trees
• Coniferous/evergreen trees
• All other significant trees"

Can you add a priority for remaining useful life? Perhaps also include a minimum threshold for a ‘condition and viability’ rating from the matrix you propose to use.

Tree Protection Fencing. Are there specifications for this somewhere I can’t find? TPF should be chain link affixed to driven steel posts. None of that plastic netting crap

Definitions
"• TPZ: “Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)” means the circular area around a tree calculated as one foot of radius for every inch of d.b.h., or at least six feet, whichever is greater. The TPZ may instead be determined by a Qualified Tree Professional."

Consider introducing the concept that a TPZ can be other than a circle!! (a square or polygon)

Rare are sites these days where there is sufficient space to complete a circle around a retained tree with sufficient soil for an adequate TPZ. ‘Other-shaped’ TPZs allow for more creativity in using soil near a tree that can be protected as part of the root zone that would otherwise be ‘outside’ that circle.

Is there any thought to licensing and/or registering businesses that cut trees in Redmond? It seems like homeowners and tree cutting businesses might not have knowledge of the rules and needs for a permit, but if businesses were required to be licensed, they could be required to know the rules and not be clear-cutting a lot, as is happening in my neighborhood now. In many other businesses (i.e. gun sales, alcohol, and many others), it is up to the business to know the rules. Perhaps requiring that in the tree business would result in fewer landmark trees in neighborhoods being cut down. Thanks for your consideration.