A Snohomish County Superior Court judge has ordered the City of Edmonds to issue a building permit to an Edmonds man following a nearly two-year dispute involving the city’s tree code.
It began in March 2022 when Edmonds resident Nathan Rimmer applied for a permit to build a home on his vacant lot in the Edmonds Bowl. But a single tree – an ornamental flowering dogwood – caused the application to run afoul of the city’s tree code.
Because the dogwood measured greater than 6 inches in diameter, it fell into the category of a “significant tree” under the City of Edmonds Tree Code, and thus required that the property owner replace it with two replacement trees. In addition, as a condition of being issued a building permit, the property owner is required by city code to execute a notice on his title dedicating both the replacement trees themselves and a portion of his lot for their installation and perpetual maintenance — in effect granting the city a permanent legal interest in his property.
While Rimmer’s permit application was complete in all other regards, the city put it on hold pending Rimmer’s granting the city this dedication. But Rimmer was unwilling to grant the city an interest in his property, maintaining that this amounts to an unconstitutional violation of his real property rights.
He unsuccessfully negotiated with the city for almost two years to grant the permit.
Finally, in December 2023, Rimmer filed a lawsuit in Snohomish County Superior Court. Citing several laws and legal precedents, the suit requested that the court issue a summary judgment that the city’s requirements in this case are unconstitutional, and mandate that the city grant his building permit.
This set off a flurry of court filings that ended on Jan.31, 2024, when Snohomish County Superior Court Judge George Appel ordered the city to grant the building permit. Rimmer was represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which published a detailed review of the case on its website here.
— By Larry Vogel
It is really terrible that the city of Edmonds caused Rimmer so many problems when he wanted to develop on his own property. I had a feeling the tree codes and tree committee would go way to far.
From the linked website: “ The case will now proceed to determine how much damages the City will have to pay for having unlawfully withheld Nathan’s permit for over a year. ”
This seems appropriate for the wronged person. And also will help other property owners going forward. Good deal. But a bad thing by a bad law for us tax payers paying for Edmonds legal team and for the damages.
No wonder our city has financial problems. How much did this cost the taxpayers in legal fees? I believe the city now has to pay his legal fees as well. And what an awful thing to go through for two years! I had no idea the city required a deed grant for trees. Simply unbelievable.
Lisa,
The City pays a boat load of money in legal fees to defend itself in lawsuits, in judgements for lawsuits they lost, in settlements of ‘claims’, and in pre-trial settlements on cases that they don’t want to go to trial, and in HR-related issues that they want to prevent from developing into a claim or a lawsuit. Claims have to be processed before a party can file a lawsuit (example1- Police Chief candidate Pruitt’s claim against the City. ) It’s always interesting to read the Claims documents that are part of the city council meeting packets. That’s the first public notice we get that something is brewing. Then if a dispute goes to court, the local press will report on that. But all the actual payouts of something that didn’t go to court is secret. I would like to see an accounting of what we’ve paid out, and a comparison to other cities of our size in the region. Then we would have the info to evaluate whether we’re wasting more money than the typical city on this ‘cost of doing business’.
A public records request might help as I know the City is not complying with the executive session law while working on the CARA (Critical Area Recharge Area) Code as through mediation, we are on our fourth settlement and there has been no entry of these decisions in open session? I just submitted a PRR on the Nathan Rimmer case as Lighthouse has a 6.2% increase in the 2025 budget and over a 7% increase in the 2026 budget and since the entire RFQ debacle caused by Council in 2023 led to hourly rates, he must be projecting a lot more lawsuits and appeals.
How the Tree Code was passed is a TAXPAYER’s nightmare. As it started with a moratorium to fix the code and then …. it stalled because of the new pro-development Administration and her code modernization techniques which never reached anything of environmental significance so her actions CAUSED this mess which is not covered by insurance. On record, you will find both (late, great) Kristiana Johnson and I kept asking the Administration to fix the “Linda Finklestaad” issue as she identified the “takings rule”. But as most know, all our questions and comments were ignored by Nelson’s team. ALL Council had to do was CHANGE THE CODE, but Lighthouse likes to ignore this “chore” as he makes money off of code irregularities.
Jason Rimmer is my hero. I have a house in Shoreline and had a huge oversized tree causing damage to my house and bugging the neighbors dropping stuff in the gutters. Luckily I had a couple of smaller trees also on the property, so I could remove it without invoking the clause that got Mr. Rimmer. But I would not have been able to CUT IT DOWN had it been the only tree. The vast majority of people with yards have little shrubs and lawn in their yards and the people who happen to have old trees are being forced to keep them. I suggest there be a rule that every person with a yard has to plant three trees. Pretty soon these trees will be large and the planet will be saved. Thank you Jason Rimmer!!
Edmonds’ Citizens Tree Board next meets on Thursday, March 7th at 6:00 PM in the Brackett Room of City Hall. I hope their agenda includes a briefing by the City Attorney. The Board should understand the costs and ramifications of current City tree code, and what steps should be taken to fix it. This legal case is a mandate for code changes.
Personally, I believe carrots are better than sticks. Rather than penalizing property owners for doing the wrong thing, it’s better to incentivize them to do the right thing.
Having a qualified consultant sent from the Tree Board to instruct and advise would be a great carrot were I needing to remove a tree. Understanding the ramifications and alternatives would help a property owner make a wise and reasoned decision. And, the Tree Board would also better understand individual situations rather than applying broad regulations to all situations.
Nope. It’s private property. End of the story.
Julia, off topic but it’s too bad that the Tree Board will not accept those who work as Arborists who live in unincorporated Edmonds to join the Board, only those who live within City limits …. as perhaps why they do not have a qualified “consultant” as such to reach out…
I applaud the landowner for fighting for his rights. Seattle would be the same should I want to add onto my house … I have two huge fir trees in my front yard and those trees were huge in 1972 when we bought the house. I do like the trees but they prevent the full use of the land. And a person shouldn’t have to sue the city to be able to utilize the land they paid for.
So happy for Mr. Rimmer and to
now know there is a law firm that can take on a City that sets it own practices, with no rules, that often do not include common sense, or fairness to all, like some of their billing practices. Reading this policy on a single tree being removed and its requirement of replacement & forfeiting property is ridiculous. As in the above, the City gains, but not because they did something right, or even makes sense.
This is a great day in Edmonds for private property rights. No matter how worthy and noble the cause, it is unconscionable for any government entity to illegally eliminate private property rights for some perceived “greater good”.
It is outrageous that the city would require an owner to grant a permanent legal interest in order to develop one’s own property.
Who knows what the legal ramifications of that action would be when the property is later placed on the market for sale with what may be considered a cloud on the title. That could result in the property not being sold or sold at a reduced price. I would never personally purchase a residence with that issue.
The trial court will have a further hearing to determine damages that will be awarded to Mr. Rimmer. In addition, I certainly hope Pacific Legal Foundation is awarded attorney fees for their excellent work in this matter.
In addition, I suggest that Mr. Rimmer and the attorney that litigated this matter would be appropriate individuals to serve as the 2024 co Grand Marshals of the City of Edmonds Fourth of July parade. After all, the Fourth of July is all about freedom from illegal government overreach, and who better to be the Grand Marshals than those who defended private property rights for all of us.
Nearly all cities have Tree codes .. it is not overreach nor out of the ordinary IMHO. Codes exist for a reason in all categories.
This over reach will only get worse. The progressives that run the blue areas do not believe in individual rights. They are socialists. Many are climate alarmists and believe the climate nonsense put out to raise taxes and run campaigns. This is how you get to the point that a citizen can’t build a home on him lot over a garbage tree. Now you can use illegal drugs while camping there illegally after entering the country illegally. That somehow isn’t a problem. Vote them out folks.
Utterly maddening!! Congratulations to Mr Rimmer! His patience and perseverance paid off. However he will NEVER get back those two years.
Way to go Mr. Rimmer, and congratulations!! I can’t believe you had to go the the lengths you did to assert your rights. And shame on you City of Edmonds, imagine what could have been done for the citizens of Edmonds with the funds spent on this legal calamity. I am just thankful that I had the humungous trees in my yard taken down when I did, and before the implementation of the “Tree Code”. Once was enough to have a 120 ft. fir tree land on my house in a storm and literally knock it off the foundation. You can’t always indentify a Hazard tree in advance of a potential catastrophe, fyi. But the Tree Board doesn’t want to hear these stories, they are too busy running around hugging all the 6″+ DBH trees in the City.
I do not mind the City asking (requiring) replacing the tree – even with 2, but then effectively placing a lien on his property is too much. A nice little compromise would have been quicker & cheaper. At least the lawyers made out – we must protect them!
Where was the City Attorney when this code was being written? Or did the Tree Board and City Council just not heed the warnings if they were given? Seems like someone should be fired for wasting taxpayer dollars.
Touche’ Mr. Carraway, someone needs to answer to this.
It would be really, really special if the city of Edmonds would just quit treating it’s own real live citizens as “the enemy.” This is never ending from forcing Ken Reidy to remove an out building for ROW access of another private citizen who was getting “special” treatment from an administration, to the land owners at Ebb Tide trying to keep property rights to a beach they paid for, to this moronic tree board action of trying to tell people what they should or shouldn’t do with their own trees on their own property. I said the tree board was a bad idea when the Council did it and this outcome of having to hand Mr. Rimmer a bunch of money we really don’t have right now makes the case against the tree board as far as I’m concerned. We need a tree board like we need to build a million dollar+ cat walk over the bay to complete the “missing link.” Mr. Rosen, it’s time to start “stopping the crazy” like you promised during the election. Council please do your part to help Mike “stop the crazy.”
Clinton,
I’m stunned that you are blaming a volunteer board. Saying “this moronic tree board action” completely misunderstands the role of our boards and commissions. Boards and Commissions have no authority to take ANY actions.
The Tree Board (Edmonds citizens who volunteer their time) serve in an ADVISORY capacity only. Council is responsible for legislation (Tree Code). The Administration (Mayor and staff) are responsible for enforcement of the Tree Code.
Members of our Boards and Commissions volunteer many hours to the City of Edmonds. For more information, see: https://www.edmondswa.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalid=16495016&pageid=17260704
Thank you, Clinton, for being a voice of reason!! I wholeheartedly agree with your summation!
The Edmonds tree code isn’t any more draconian than the tree codes in neighboring cities, and I’ll bet those other tree codes (likely mostly Seattle’s) were used as a framework for the creation of the Edmonds Tree Code. I just feel so gleefully happy that perhaps all these cities will need to scale back their own codes using this ruling as a precedent. In general, all the tree codes are high-handed. And I LIKE trees and democracy. The Tree Board volunteers (who mostly want to make the codes as restrictive as possible and feel generally high-minded about the whole tree issue) and the cities have been getting away with this for TOO LONG. Time to find better ways to save the planet. I’d like to know how many big old trees the tree board folks have on THEIR properties. And yes, this issue really gets me riled.
Joan, I guess I’m stunned that you think we should believe that the Council didn’t implement the Tree Code based on the recommendations that the Tree Board made to them on the subject. That’s the whole point of all these various boards and commissions of citizens that we appoint – to help the Council make good legislation. If you can convince me that the Tree Code we have isn’t exactly what the majority on the Tree Board wanted and recommended to the Council I will happily humble myself with a written apology to everyone on that board. The fact that something is done based on well meaning intent doesn’t automatically make it a good thing to do. It turns out our tree board’s recommendations probably haven’t really saved any trees and the council’s actions, based on their recommendations, have cost us money we don’t have in the budget. I question that this tree board has been of any real value to us. I do agree with Roger Pence that incentives to do the right thing, work better than codes and edicts about what can and can’t be done by law or code.
Clinton,
Staff is actively involved in writing code. Draft code always goes to the Planning Board. Often, several staff members attend Planning Board meetings. At the February 24, 2024 PB meeting, Director Susan McLaughlin, four planners, and City Attorney, Jeff Taraday, attended.
By the time the draft Tree Code got to Council over two years ago, any legally questionable actions, such as dedication of private property to the COE, should have been removed. If Director McLaughlin’s staff missed a legal issue, the City Attorney should have addressed it when Council finalized the code.
In a quick review of the Tree Code, the closest related section may be:
23.10.085 Protected trees – Notice on title.
Which includes: “The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision.”
In the highly unlikely event that Tree Board member(s) wrote code related to this lawsuit, there are many points at which correction could have been made by staff or the city attorney, prior to or during Council review.
Director McLaughlin (under Mike Nelson’s administration) oversaw the permitting process for Nathan Rimmer’s property. Director discretion/authority is referenced in many points throughout the Tree Code.
It’s all well and good to blame the then mayor Nelson, Director McLaughlin, and our city attorney for this outcome, but I (like some other’s commenting here) think our local tree board has to own some of the responsibility for this outcome as well. I distinctly remember getting into somewhat heated discussions in MEN with some tree board members who were advocating for these heavy city restrictions on what home owners can and can’t do with their own trees. I said at the time this would not lead to good results. I sure don’t recall any great outcry from any of the tree board members that property rights must be protected in whatever was arrived at as code. A few weeks before the code went into force we woke up to the sound of chain saws and the smell of 2 stroke oil/gas mix being burned almost every morning for awhile.
It’s hard not to sympathize with Mr. Rimmer. And as for trees, the City seems uninterested in doing anything about manifestly dangerous, dead and dying trees poised to fall over a public street in Edmonds because the trees are on an essentially abandoned tract that once seemed to have belonged to a long dormant HOA. Or something. The City also refuses to even acknowledge, let alone act on, the manifestly dangerous dead and dying trees looming over the main thoroughfare through Yost Park. Entire trees and large branches regularly crash over this path. To me, this amounts to negligence. There are plenty of other dead and dying trees in the park to serve as wood pecker fodder or owl habitat.
On the other hand, loss of tree cover in our region is serious. Look at Google satellite photos of the area from say 20 or 40 years ago compared to now. Lack of tree cover contributes to the heat island effect. This is easy to observe. On a hot day, just walk off the asphalt into a tree-covered park. Whether or not the City’s approach to solving this is the right one, loss of trees is a serious matter. I think the science is there to support this. So what to do? Darned if you do…
Piling on here. A tree board encouraging a green canopy is it good thing. The city using illegal punitive measures to force its citizens with property titles is wrong. It would be instructive to know how much the city actions will cost including legal fees and damages. Further, any other property owners who were forced to have their property titles compromised should be cured and compensated. As others have reminded Mayor Rosen, “it’s time to stop the crazy.”
The tree in question is an ornamental dogwood which has a normal life span max. of about 5 decades. So the city messed up Mr. Rimmer’s building plans and cost us a bunch of money in the process to save a tree that might have been nearing it’s expected lifespan anyway. What total nonsense and waste of everyone’s time and money this has been. Will we learn any lesson from this? Based on what I’ve seen here the past sixty years or so, my answer would have to be, “I doubt it.”
All individuals who own and have paid property taxes for years on their parcels should and are thanking Mr. Rimmer and the Pacific Legal Foundation for taking on and defeating the City of Edmonds. Private property owners who have cared for their land, paid what are at times excessive taxes to fund inefficient government entities are in a much better position to decide the best use of their land and anything on it. Wouldn’t it be refreshing after this court ruling for our city to just do the right thing-repeal the tree code, balance the budget and trust our citizens to be the stewards of their own property. Jeff Remington
I have a suggestion we could try out. Instead of an official and quasi-governmental “Tree Board” involving mayoral appointment; what if we went to a totally private “Native Tree Advocacy Board” which could and should advise builders, home gardeners and the city Parks department on good practices. There are very good and well meaning people on our “Tree Board” but wouldn’t it be much better if being on such a board was totally open to everyone with knowledge and interest with no possible political strings attached?
The City of Edmonds should manage their properties not private property. The city trying to manage trees, on private property is over stepping citizens rights. My property my decision on landscaping not the cities. If I want to plant a vegetable garden, but my soil is to acidic because of a tree, I should be able to remove the tree. If I am
Elder and the leaves are too much upkeep, I should be able to remove the tree. If the branches during storms start damaging my property or my neighbors I should be able to remove the tree. Personal property management is not the cities business it’s the property owners. Congratulations Nathan and Rosie! Shame on you Edmonds!
CM Nand, you are listed as the City Council Liaison for the Tree Board. So you are our voice on this matter. You frequently express your views on Edmonds News but on this issue your silence is loud. How do you justify what Mr Rimmer had to endure over the last 2 years because of one tree (and not a red cedar or Douglas fir)? Do you agree that an Edmond’s resident and property owner should be required to execute a notice on his title to remove a tree? And what has this battle over one tree not only cost Mr. Rimmer but our bankrupt city?
Mayor Rosen,
This is your opportunity to start the clean up process of the toxic waste dump left behind by former Mayor Mike Nelson and his cronies. Right some wrongs, and at the same time hopefully restore some faith in the City of Edmonds for your taxpaying citizens.
We had tall beautiful fir trees on our property line, which we pruned, so we were not a negligent tree owner. The increased wind’s and the trees became a problem for the home built right off our fence line. We called the tree board could you help with this conflict with our neighbor about the trees? we were told no! We decided before the fines were in place the trees would go, along with many of my neighbors trees. People won’t plant trees if the city insists on being involved in a tree’s life.
We have a pretty good size parcel, and we have planted a few trees on it over the years. Even with the tree ordinance, we have continued to plant trees. Only difference that as of the recent changes to the tree ordinance, the trees are either Dwarf Alberta Spruces, or regular trees that we grow in pots to regulate their size. In that way we have many trees on our property, but they are not subject to any draconian tree ordinances, now or in the future.
Our actions are a perfect example of what is known as “the law of unanticipated consequences” as a result of unreasonable overreaching legislation. As a result, we have less tall trees on our property because of the tree ordinance.