Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Why are not adjacent disenfranchised homeowners being equally served as the City is providing for housing for those not being “inclusive” in the housing market?
There needs to be a middle housing code amendment requiring evergreen hedges to be planted by the developer along adjoining residential properties. The intent is to reestablish the loss of privacy for those homeowners impacted by large dwellings constructed 10-feet off their property line.
If a wooded parcel is clearcut to make way for housing, any money required to be paid into the “tree fund” account needs to be used solely for the installation of a privacy hedge.
Hedge trees need to be evergreen in nature and not necessarily native plants. One tree I have planted successfully as a privacy hedge is the Leyland cypress. They are fast-growing evergreens with a normal growth rate exceeding 2 feet annually.
Leyland cypress is a hybrid of the native Monterey and Nootka cypress trees. The Nootka cypress, also known as an Alaska yellow cedar, is native to the Pacific Northwest.
Also, the Excelsa cedar by all accounts is also a bushy tree often used as a hedge when a “two story” privacy screen is desired. They are natural-looking, mildly fragrant, indigenous trees, suitable for urban settings. It is a cultivar of the Western Red Cedar, a Pacific Northwest native tree and grows as much annually in height as the Leyland cypress.
Both trees are good for the local environment, providing wildlife habitat and helpful in fighting global warning since they absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide in their growing process.
Hedges are an important alternative means of providing privacy since a fence cannot because of height restrictions. Edmonds city code will not allow the construction of a fence more than 6-feet tall adorned by a small lattice addition. How does that offset the intrusion of 24-foot height dwellings being built 10 feet off the property line?
It’s time for the City to do what’s right for homeowners who are negatively impacted by middle housing subdivisions and mitigate their loss of their privacy. Why should affected homeowners have to bear the expense of installing a hedge to regain their privacy?
Duane Farmen lives in Edmonds’ Seaview neighborhood.
Duane. this is a great application and use case. Thanks for sharing.. as homeowners, we haven’t seen this issue, but have heard from others.
Really, you make an excellent point. When we talk about equitable housing policy in Edmonds, it can’t just mean creating new units—it must also mean protecting the quality of life and property values of existing homeowners who are suddenly facing 24 ft just ten feet from their property lines. The City should adopt a Middle Housing Code amendment requiring evergreen privacy hedges along adjoining residential lots whenever infill or subdivision development occurs.
This would be a balanced and environmentally positive solution. Developers who clear-cut lots should be responsible for restoring the lost green buffer—not the neighboring residents who had no say in the project.
The “tree fund” is a good start, but its dollars should go directly toward living screens that restore privacy, absorb CO₂, and provide habitat.
Leyland cypress and Excelsa cedar are excellent examples of fast-growing, climate-friendly hedges that could be standardized in code. Just as we regulate drainage, setbacks, and parking, we should regulate privacy restoration.
It’s time the City of Edmonds incorporated landscape mitigation into middle housing policy—so growth can happen without eroding the livability of established neighborhoods.
Leyland Cypress are an invasive tree that grows rapidly. It does NOT make a good hedge. To keep it under control, it must be trimmed 1-2 times yearly making it difficult to maintain unless you are prepared to spend thousands on pruning. We planted 4 in our yard years ago, saw where their growth was becoming out of control and removed them just in time. Ai overview
“The Leyland cypress is a hybrid created by accident in the late 1800s when C.J. Leyland planted seeds from a Monterey cypress and a Nootka cypress, resulting in the first Leyland cypress tree at his Leighton Hall ESTATE in Wales in 1888. Initially an accidental cross, the hybrid proved to be a fast-growing and useful evergreen tree that was commercialized for hedges and screens, though ITS RAPID GROW HAS LED TO NEIGHBOR DISPUTES IN SOME AREAS.” In my opinion, they should be banned unless you have acres in the country with LOTS of space for their growth. They are a junk tree. Cheap to buy but expensive to maintain…after you finally realize how BIG they have become in your yard. There are better options. We speak from first hand experience. It is NOT native to the Pacific Northwest.
I agree with you and will include a few thoughts below for conversation purposes only and possibly touch up on the elephant in the room… What if your want of privacy is contrary to the wants of the state or the direction of urban planning. Privacy may simply be achieved by staying inside or closing your blinds. With the recent housing code changes, single family housing code no longer exists and instead it is low density(a minimum of 2 houses are permitted or 2 ADU’s). Housing is getting taller, closer to the neighbors and closer to the street so more housing can be built and less area is taken up to build it. Off street parking will soon not be required to allow more area to build and decrease costs by a small amount. Edmonds is now an urban area and density could quickly increase further with a majority vote. Much of our population (like me) is older, taxes and cost of living will increase, and many will move away and more metro folks will buy up properties. I suspect Edmonds charm will change and the charm of a “Ballard” will be the new charm of Edmonds…
Please don’t take quick fixes to provide privacy. The Leyland cypress is a VERY fast grower which often take several trims per year, especially if it is planted near a wet area. It not only grows up but grows wide. It is not a good choice. Excelsa cedar is not well known. I hope someone with knowledge of this tree would inform readers of their experience with the tree. There are good evergreen trees which do not grow as fast, but will be better in the long run. I plan to do my research and recommend better choices. The city should not be recommending the Leyland cypress.
Leylands are great choice if planted far enough off the property line, especially if it’s on the subdivisions parcel. Also, I would not expect a Middle housing subdivision would or could be built in a wet area.
Edmonds has multiple small streams and many houses are built along small streams.
Perhaps you have not been exposed to such streams. My house which has a small stream on the border has three strawberry trees growing. One was planted on top of rocks which were placed in our front yard.That tree grows slowly and is about 6-7 feet tall. The 2 Strawberry trees grown in good soil in the backyard have grown to 25 to 30 feet tall.
Leylands are much cheaper to buy. This is because of their swift growth, especially if the soil is good. Sky Nursery sells the Leylands and their sign says “Only grow on very large properties”. I would also avoid growing in view areas.
Leyland Cypress and Red Cedar are both horrible choices. Why would you publish a letter from someone who has no idea what they are talking about and is just mad because things are inevitably changing? Typical American behavior to want someone else to take care of and pay for a solution to a wholly personal problem.
Duane,
Barbara Chase is correct. I went to a workshop on trees when I was a member of the Tree Board. Every certified arborist who spoke referenced the Leyland Cypress as their top recommendation NOT to plant in an urban environment. I had already planted 3 Leyland Cypresses which I had to remove (cost $1000 years ago, and would cost much more today) because they grew too big, too fast. They are also shallow rooted and subject to windfall.
I agree with your recommendation of buffers. Unfortunately, a narrower, slower growing tree would be required. Also, COE has allowed building on wetlands for decades. HB1110 upzoning will make this problem much worse.
We had the same problem with a condo built behind us. First the cut our Fir trees to the trunk 2 feet into our property (with notifying us). Then we had to get rid of our hot tub and for a long time didn’t use our back-yard, beside the neighbors sat on their deck over looking our yard. I felt invaded. So I built a raise area next to the fence and added Thuja Trees spaced to block our bedroom and view of our deck. They are now 20 tall and better neighbors.
Duane,
Commenters to this RV should also review your 8-19-25 RV “Middle housing comes to roost in Seaview”:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/08/reader-view-middle-housing-comes-to-roost-in-seaview/
In the above RV you reference a specific lot:
“The lot being considered for development is located at 18213 80th Ave. W. in Edmonds. It is a .69-acre lot, steeply sloped with 46 significant trees. The arborist report indicates all of those trees are to be logged off except for four that will be retained along the outer boundary of the site.”
Hopefully, reading “Middle housing comes to roost in Seaview” will help others to better understand your concern for tree buffers to protect surrounding property owners, to protect our environmental assets, and to replace a small fraction of the tree cover that will be lost from this, as well as future, proposed development.
Members of Edmonds Environmental Council https://edmondsenvironmentalcouncil.org have worked with Senior Planner, Brad Shipley, updating our Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). The resulting draft CAO will be presented to the Planning Board this Wednesday, Oct. 22.
Also, my sincere thanks for organizing the “Save Perrinville Woods” group who have advocated for years to protect our Critical Areas from overdevelopment.
Edmonds city just okayed the building of a residence adjacent to a key wetland across the street from Yost Park and the city owned community theater building that will impact already struggling Shell Creek. The Edmonds official Critical Areas Code is being re written at this time. The question is whether Edmonds City will follow it’s own code to the letter, once it gets re written. Edmonds City’s historical record with wetlands and critical areas is not particularly positive so far.
I also favor requirements for green privacy buffers for new housing developments, and I am sure there are several hedge/tree species that would be suitable for this. However, for these to be at all meaningful, there also has to be requirements for minimum size and spacing at the time of planting, as well as adequate care during the establishment phase (2 years.)
I have seen developers show up with 3-5 ft tall Arborvitae, plant them 5-6 feet apart, then just leave them. The developer may have “checked the box,” and Arborvitae may be fast growing and survive, but trees this small and spaced this far apart will never provide privacy in your lifetime.
I personally planted a privacy buffer at my house using 9-10 ft tall Emerald Green Arborvitae, planted on 2 ft centers, fertilized and watered for the first 2 years. I am very happy with it, it is much taller today, and no trimming required !!!
Leyland cypress is a poor choice, due to the poor development of the root system. They grow extremely fast tall and wide and have tremendous potential for wind loading, which will eventually top of them and send them crashing into someone’s house. They require extensive root pruning to develop a good fibrous, below ground root system. I would recommend planting an Alaskan yellow cedar. They are native to our area have somewhat rapid growth and stay columnar in habit. This will reduce the footprint and allow for better use of urban landscapes. Be mindful, if you’re planting on the southern property line, within the next 5 to 10 years you’ll be excluding yourself a large amount of sunlight. This will increase your heating bill during the winter. Emerald green hedges are by far the most tried and true edge species for the Pacific Northwest. Sure, everyone has him but they’re extremely effective and require just a minimum of a footprint to make a 20+ tall permanent Evergreen screen
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my suggestion of using Leyland Cypress as a privacy hedge. I just have a difference of opinion since I have grown them for over 25 years with no problems, other than the cost of topping and trimming them every 3 years.
That said, the principal point of my letter to MEN, was recommending a Middle Housing code amendment requiring evergreen hedges to be planted by the developer along adjoining residential properties with the intent is to re-establish the loss of privacy for those homeowners impacted by large 24-ft dwellings constructed 10-feet off their property line. And, and if a wooded parcel is clear-cut to make way for housing, any monies required to be paid into the “tree fund” account, needs to be used solely for the installation of a privacy hedge”.
I was not recommending that Leyland cypress trees be included as part of any code change. I mentioned them only as a potential evergreen tree that was fast growing and could be used in providing a privacy hedge.
For whatever it’s worth, the side yard setbacks and heights from the old RS development standards (prior to state housing mandates), to the new LDR development standards (post state housing mandates) have not changed. It was 5/7.5/10 at 25’ for the various RS zones and it’s currently at 5/7.5/10 at 25’ (24’ for DADU) for the 3 LDR zones. Sounds like privacy was an issue before the state mandates took effect.
Unless of course you create a flag lot, and then you get side setbacks everywhere apparently.
True!! Hopefully P&D is working to fix that.
Living here for 33 years I don’t recall too much of a problem here in Edmonds until they first started with the ADU chatter. Now at first if was touted as a small place in a persons back yard for a she or he shed or an older family member etc. Then it grew to put the everywhere bunches of them on one SFH property and then they got taller and taller ha and were allowed to have two tall buildings looking into peoples windows and pretty much no regard for privacy. So solution to me is that I believe ones private property is still their private property so build your 24 foot hedges just dig a trench in your own yard along your fence or in front of your fence no fence ok dig the trench and plant the trees of your choice as long as the tree isn’t illegal in Edmonds or the state. In the interim add your lattice or put lattice structures along your trench and add some flowers and some vines and well those vines can climb wherever they choose. They like trees. Create your own canopy! Provide your own privacy. It would be nice if developers or private owners of these structures would do that for all concerned. Is my idea legal Jeremy? Thanks. How are you dude?