Editor:
Big Red, a majestic coast redwood at the Boardwalk Condominium, 1024 5th Ave. S., is threatened for removal!
Big Red, a tree of significance, stands tall welcoming visitors and residents of Edmonds to Tree City USA.
Big Red adds its natural beauty to our Edmonds green esthetics, along with its many environmental benefits, and should be preserved for all to walk by, take in its stature and admire. Walkers stop and stand in front of its enormous trunk for selfies and photos of their children hugging Big Red.
Big Red has been judged to be a healthy tree by several certified arborists, members of the International Society of Arboriculture. Big Red is not a nuisance tree or a hazardous tree.
Its preservation should be a determining factor in consideration of climate change, which is top of mind, for its carbon sequestration, environmental cooling, sound absorption, protection from the brake, tire and road dust for the homes on the east end of Boardwalk B Building, its home to many birds and its sense of serenity that is of unequalled value
However, a Boardwalk condominium board member has unilaterally decided that Big Red should be cut down and will approach the City of Edmonds for permitting to remove.
I would hope that the City of Edmonds can protect Big Red so this wonderful tree can continue to stand tall for passersby to enjoy for years to come.
Dennis L. Weaver
Edmonds
Dennis, I would check your Association’s CC&R’s. Regardless of retention codes outlined in ECDC chapter 23, the tree could be protected already through a covenant (check your title). If not, your Association most likely needs 2/3rds vote of the community to do such a thing anyway.
Best of luck and hope the tree sticks around!
A condominium member wants this healthy, mature tree removed? I really hope not. Thank you for the heads up. With warmer drier summers this tree is an important indicator of what species could thrive here.
Without question, this tree must be protected and preserved and the City of Edmonds must not issue a permit now or in future.
I don’t even know if I’ve been to where this Big Red tree stands, but I “speak for the tree” just like the Lorax every time anyone suggests cutting a tree down. We humans are doing too much harm. And if everything stated in this letter is true, I suggest we leave the tree alone and let it live.
Gail –
It’s one of the tallest trees on that block. It’s right by the condo complex sign. I’m sure when condo residents give someone directions, they use the tree as a landmark. It needs to be left alone for current and future Edmonds residents to enjoy. As well as any birds or wildlife that use the tree as their home.
Unfortunately, the tree is threatening the foundation of one of Boardwalk’s condominiums. Plus, it is a danger as it is now leaning and could potentially fall. If it kills a human being, everyone would say why wasn’t it removed sooner. A similar hazardous tree was removed a few years ago down the street from a condominium complex and replaced with a smaller tree. Human life versus a tree, I pick saving a life.
Theresa –
As a 35 Year Resident/Homeowner @ the Boardwalk, I can say it is NOT:
“the tree is threatening the foundation of one of Boardwalk’s condominiums”
“it is a danger as it is now leaning and could potentially fall.”
‘Big Red’ has been judged to be a healthy tree by several certified arborists, members of the International Society of Arboriculture®. “Big Red’ is not a nuisance tree or a hazardous tree.
In fact, the Board’s own study revealed:
Good: The tree exhibits good overall vigor.
Crown and Branches – No major structural defects were observed.
Trunk – The trunk was straight and no major defects were observed. Mallet sounding did not reveal any internal decay.
Roots and Root Collar – No visible defects.
Risk Categorization: The likelihood of trunk failure is improbable.
Overall Tree Risk Rating: LOW
Mitigation Options: None
Residual Risk: LOW
‘Big Red’ – a living asset for our Edmonds.
Dennis L. Weaver
Never has this tree been diagnosed as failing in any way. Its a healthy, strong tree. The removal is about protected ting property. People are forced to remove trees on their property all the time. Roots damage plumbing, sidewalks, foundations. That is the only issue here.
Hi Janice, there are middle steps to take that can keep the tree and repair your failing infrastructure, if it is failing because of the tree. To assume there isn’t is simply wrong. There is no forcing in this situation – please consider that all can exist and function. This tree is important and safe. Please consider thinking outside the box in this situation.
Hello Theresa, I evaluated this tree and there is a very low if no possibility of this tree failing either in root or trunk. The foundation of the condo is too far away to be threatened by the roots. If you have received advice to the contrary I would double check your sources. And neither way does this threaten the foundation nor life at the condominium. Simply because there was a different tree that failed close by does not mean that this is a similar situation. Please consider that this is a long-term tree for this area.
I also love that tree and don’t understand why it would be considered a problem.
I thought we were not even allowed to cut down trees. My beautiful cypress deboscoff was killed by the PUD – turned brown overnight! (6th and Main). Never apologized! Save the trees – I agree – Save the Redwood!
Dear Dennis,
I was shocked when I heard that such a removal was being considered seriously. There is a problen around the tree, but it is with the drive, which needs to be replaced–not the tree. The tree is healthy and gorgeous and a special treat to the condo, the neighborhood, and the city of Edmonds. In checking with the Tree Board, I was told that it does appear that there is no code saving old growth trees like this one. It was a unpleasant surprise to learn that we do not have a specific code to save historic trees like Big Red. Perhaps Jeremy is right that there is something in the condo association’s covenant; that would be grreat.
If the parking lot has gotten in the way of the tree., why would the conclusion be to remove the tree? The tree was there first. The parking lot can be replaced, and it will have to be to be repaired anyway. But it would take hundreds of years to replace the tree. Let’s figure out a way to live in Harmony with Trees.
Leave the tree alone. Trees can “lean” and still be rock solid. Have an arborist give an opinion regarding the potential hazard — maybe a few of them.
My Edmonds Neighbors –
Thank you all for the outpouring of support to keep ‘Big Red’. Much appreciated.
Our best bet to SAVE ‘Big Red’ is to challenge our City to really be TREE CITY USA®, with calls, letters, Social Media postings and local News Publications, so when a healthy, majestic tree of distinction is threatened for removal for no good reason, the City stands up to its CLAIM.
Another solution: The Boardwalk Board Member could withdraw the Permit to Remove Application.
‘Big Red’ – a living asset of our Edmonds.
Dennis L. Weaver
Tree lovers and huggers. Please get your facts before you judge. Trees are great and should be preserved where they pose no danger. However, some trees become hazardous as they age or due to damage. I remember about fifteen years ago when a mother was killed and her daughter injured when a tree fell on their car in Mukilteo. Nature is beautiful but sometimes it can be cruel. If this tree poses a hazard the owners have both the right and the duty legally to remove and replace it.
To be clear, ‘Big Red’ , while one of many large trees in Edmonds, was only named that recently by Mr. Weaver to gain attention for a non-native tree that is neither old growth nor historic. It has been impacting our property buildings for a number of years. We have spent a couple of years investigating alternatives to saving both the tree, our buildings and driveway, hardly a unilateral decision, nor one taken lightly.
Boardwalk Board member
Hi Carol, it is a an old wonderful and unusual tree that provides many functions not only for your property but surrounding ones and the community at large – Mr. Weaver is not the only one who has noticed it prior to this coming to light. Your buildings are safe. Your infrastructure can be worked on without having to remove the tree. If your decision making process involved opinions that said otherwise, by all means please share them so your community can understand why you are choosing the path that does not need to be followed. To remove this tree would be a detriment to your community. Thank you for considering this as you have your other opinions.
Thank you, Carol, and yes, not only has our HOA board spent years investigating alternatives, the homeowner’s association (i.e., the 29 homeowners) has also paid out thousands of dollars several times over to continue and continue to repair, resurface and repave the parking lot from the damage the tree incessantly is causing it – last time about 5 years ago — so we do the repair in 2024 – and then again in 2029, and on and on. I love trees as much as Dennis does, but not a tree that is impacting the foundation of my home and the value of my investment in my home. It is very easy for others on this thread to sit upon their lofts and “judge” how terrible we are and how anti-tree we are. That is not the case. The ones judging us are not paying for this damage.
Jeanne –
I would beg to differ with you.
The HOA has NOT “paid out thousands of dollars several times over and continue to repair, resurface and repave the parking lot”. There are no reports or receipts showing that. One time, maybe 20 years ago, one tree root in the parking lot was covered. The real damage to the driveway has been caused by the heavy Waste Management trucks. It has been a growing trip & fall area for several years and the HOA Board has been in no rush to repair.
You and Bill have begged the Boardwalk Board to fix that one tree root that crosses the driveway into you B Building parking lot, but your request was ignored. That particular uplift could have easily been recontoured years ago.
“Bid Red’ is not “impacting the foundation” of your Home. Period.
‘Big Red’ … a living asset of our Edmonds.
Dennis
Each letter writer is invited to walk onto Boardwalk property to see the damage to our parking lot and driveway. The roots of this tree are in direct conflict with the building’s foundation and asphalt/concrete surfaces. Each owner at Boardwalk understands the significant value of trees. This tree was planted here many years ago, never knowing that a condo would be constructed feet from its trunk. The soil protecting its roots was removed and asphalt spread inches over those roots. The conflict between tree and condo began. Its the ancient story of clearing the land to build a house. This decision was not made without research, professional advice and is a decision made by our FULL Board. No single person made this decision. Mr Weaver’s continual reference to “Big Red” is perfect example of anthropomorphizing a non- human object. Using cheap sentimentality to give weight to his rant.
I am inclined to believe Katy Bigalow’s assessment over yours, unless you are perhaps also a Certified Arborist?
As Janice referenced, “this tree was planted here many years ago, never knowing that a condo would be constructed feet from its trunk.” This indicates that the City provided a building permit which no doubt excluded any right to remove the tree prior to construction because it was thought not to pose a threat. Since an arborist has stated the tree is still healthy and not in danger of falling, it is standard procedure to have an arborist annually check the health of mature trees that are close to buildings. Acting to take down a healthy, mature tree because it is assumed that such trees fall and kill people would mean that there would be hardly any mature trees left in our City as there are many that could cause harm should they ever fall. I lived for many years in Carmel-by-the-Sea in CA. It is within an urban forest and if trees next to homes were to be removed, there would be no forest. Residents there have their trees checked regularly, and the larger ones have deep roots that survive the heaviest of storms. No one can predict which one
might fall, unless it is in obvious bad shape. Learn to live with trees. They will help us stay cool in the coming heatwaves that will become more regular events with our changing climate.
Some history:
The redwood grew from a burl purchased during a California road trip by my grandparents about 100 years ago. It was topped by my father about 65 years ago. That is reason for the dual trunks.
My mother sold the house and property to the builders of the condos.
Love hearing the story behind the tree and its connection to your own family history. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the comment, Brad.
There is a steel eyebolt imbedded in the trunk about 15 feet up. It was the attachment for my amateur radio antenna wire.
The bottomline here is whether the City’s Development Services Director will decide to issue a permit regardless of Community concern or the City Council’s “intent” in adopting the current tree code. She has already commented that “The permit has not yet been issued but staff will process the application consistent with applicable codes.” AND as everyone knows, Edmonds City Code is woefully ambiguous in many regards thus allowing City staff to make decisions for the City that may or may not have been intent of the City Council. The Council is supposed to represent the interests of all the people of Edmonds, whereas City staff “processing applications and permits” may allow actions to occur that many people will object to.
Thus, I’d urge everyone that wants to see the tree protected, in accordance with the INTENT of the tree code, to immediately contact the City Council and request the Council take action to issue an emergency interim ordnance prohibiting the issuance of permits to cut large trees. This will allow the Council, with public input, to decide if the tree code needs to be immediately modified to protect large, old trees, and when and if they should be considered a hazard. This will also prevent the Development Services Director from making a subjective decision without regard to the all the facts and the Council’s intent.
Joe – you are right. Contacting the Council and the Mayor may get results, the Development department won’t.
I don’t understand how some City policies can contradict so completely with others i.e. reduction in greenhouse gases, and yet allowing tree removal “within existing code.” If we are changing behaviors to quell climate change, don’t we need to change the code regarding trees?
According to the Edmonds Tree Code, no permit is required. Section 23.10.040.F covers this as an Exemption to permit requirement as a Nuisance Tree because it has caused damage to the parking lot (based on comment above from Board member, and from personally walking by and looking at the buckled parking lot pavement radiating outward from the tree.) It could also be argued that it’s covered under (E) also, since it’s an “exotic species” to our area.
If you read the literature from California’s Extension Service on redwoods, you’ll find their rooting structure relies on other redwoods for stability. They don’t have taproots like deciduous trees. This import, while beautiful and stately, is not in an environment that suits its ecology, and every year it grows, the chances of it toppling when wind follows heavy rains increases. It’s not “the right tree in the right place.”
Brian –
Thanks for your comments. However, as you might imagine, I have a bit different take.
Living at the Boardwalk, I would not describe “a buckled parking lot pavement radiating outward from the tree,” but rather as tree roots having caused three minor ‘speed’ bumps’ after 35 years of no parking lot maintenance by the Boardwalk Board, Waste Management refuse trucks have destroyed the driveway, so perhaps we should ‘remove’ them.
“Section 23.10.040.F: Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant’s qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance.” If another qualified arborist reports the opposite, then I guess it’s a toss up. And in that case, I would hope that our City stands up for its claim of TREE CITY, USA®
“They (Redwoods) don’t have taproots like deciduous trees.” Neither do Western Red Cedar, Sitka Spruce, Sequoia and Western Hemlock. “Every year it grows, the chances of it toppling when wind follows heavy rains increases.” Looks like we’re going to have to remove a lot of trees in our Edmonds to keep us all safe.
‘Big Red’ … a living asset of our Edmonds.
Dennis L. Weaver
WITH THANKS TO EVERYONE’S EFFORTS, we won round one for ‘Big Red’.
The Boardwalk parking lot was repaved with ‘Big Red’ in place, taking away the “reason” for removing ‘Big Red’ … the three speed bumps caused by its root uplifting the old, unmaintained parking lot surface.
However, until the application for a permit PLN2024-0005 to cut down ‘Big Red’ is either withdrawn or rejected AND the Tree Code is amended to protect Landmark/Exceptional/Significant/Heritage Trees, ‘Big Red’ is still at risk.
We must work to close the gap in the current Edmonds Tree Code Policy that quite freely allows for the removal of healthy Landmark/Exceptional/Significant/Heritage Trees simply by an application for a permit which requires no reason for a removal.
So, we still have to keep the conversations going with City Council, along with Letters/E-Mails, urging protection now of our valuable trees until the revised Tree Code is submitted to City Council in Q4 by the City Planning & Development Department with Citizen’s Tree Board recommendations.
‘Big Red’ – a living historical asset of our Edmonds.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/03/history-big-red-and-the-lewis-and-wilson-family-legacy/
Dennis L. Weaver
35 Year Boardwalk Resident