The days may be numbered for Boardwalk Condominiums’ 90-foot-tall redwood, known to many as Big Red.
Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Edirin Okoloko on Wednesday ruled to dismiss a complaint brought by Boardwalk resident Dennis Weaver asking that the City of Edmonds rescind its previously issued permit to remove the tree from the Boardwalk parking lot.
For background and details, see My Edmonds News’ earlier story here.
While the City of Edmonds had initially put the permit on hold pending court action, on the advice of the city attorney the permit was reinstated prior to Wednesday’s ruling.
“We had initially [informed] the applicant that we were holding on the permit until we could consult with our city attorney on how to view the permit’s status,” explained Edmonds Planning and Development Director Shane Hope in an email to My Edmonds News. “We learned that the appeal did not stay the permit and accordingly advised the applicant that the permit remained in effect and met the code requirements for tree removal. Therefore, since the permit was validly issued under the city’s tree code, the applicant can proceed with removing the redwood.”
In its motion to dismiss, Edmonds’ city attorneys argued that Weaver’s original complaint was improperly served, pointing out it was served on Edmonds Planning and Development Department staff rather than the Edmonds city clerk, the proper recipient in such matters.
The dismissal therefore was based solely on procedural grounds, and did not consider the merits of the case.
Despite this setback, Weaver has expressed determination to continue his efforts to save the tree, known to many as Big Red.
“I did not seek any shortcuts of service of our land use petition as was charged by the city’s attorneys,” Weaver said in an email to his supporters. “I served Rose Haas, planner, the only city representative I had worked with for over a year and who I understood to have jurisdiction over the permitting process…but it turns out she was not the person to be served.”
Weaver continues to contend that the permit is invalid because it misidentifies the tree as a giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) and not a coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and specifically states that the permit is for removal of “one Sequoiadendron giganteum, a tree which does not exist on the site.”
Despite this, absent any further legal filings by Weaver and/or his supporters or additional administrative action by the city, the way is clear for the tree to be removed.
The residents of the Boardwalk Condominium may want to pay attention to this. As Dennis Weaver says, the tree permitted to be cut does not exist on the property. The tree known as “Big Red” is a Coast Redwood. Sequoia sempervirens have an entirely different growth habit that do giant sequoias. Unless the underground root system is removed completely, the condominium owners are at risk of whatever is left of Big Red’s roots sending up adventitious shoots that could seriously damage the paving installed at their expense less than a year ago. Whether the tree is removed properly and completely, or not, that paving will need to be replaced again very soon. Leaving the tree standing is the most cost effective solution. They may want to speak up to the board about this unwise decision to seek a permit.
Sad, people get into arguments and fight to the finish whether it’s the right thing or not..gotta win!
People stand up for what they believe is right. Why does that make you sad? And what’s “the right thing”?
Not sure what your point is.
Cynthia –
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Much appreciated.
I’m not trying to WIN anything. I’m just trying to save the life of ‘Big Red’, a 102 year old coast redwood, a majestic, historically significant tree https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/03/history-big-red-and-the-lewis-and-wilson-family-legacy/ in our town of Edmonds that at the same, time climate change is top of mind.
Climate change can be mitigated one tree at a time, conversely, lost by one tree at a time.
Dennis Weaver
35-Year Boardwalk Resident
425.774.8971
Thank you so much for your efforts. Seattle is also losing so baby beautiful trees.. to developers. City only cares about the $$$$
This knowledge seems highly important to their considerations! I hope it gets to the right ears. Thank you for sharing.
Sad. Can’t they just build up the base and repave or cut a root out? Has to be some alternative to chopping the tree down.
I may have missed something here – didn’t the Condos redo the roadway/parking area and raise the pavement such that the tree roots were no longer a problem? Isn’t that the way we should work with our environment in the Northwest to keep our tree canopy where possible and maintain all the benefits of the trees that make the Northwest a desirable area to live?
What’s the basis for cutting this tree down? AND what is the basis for the City’s permit to allow that – is it consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan that the City worked so hard on several years back?
Is it time for Mayor Rosen to step-up and “stop the crazy” and retract the permit and resolve the issue? Do citizens really have to take the City to court on such issues – – and cost taxpayers more money for legal fees?
Yes, the parking lot was regraded and repaved. Nice landscaping was installed at the base of the tree.
You would think this would be simple…but it is so frustrating!
I have emailed the mayor numerous times about Big Red and have never received a response from he or his staff.
Right on, Joe. I am looking that this tree now. It is a gorgeous old growth red wood. It would be a travesty to kill this magnificent tree. It seems that the city is trying to find any small insignificant reasons to over rule the order to stop the removal. WHAT CAN WE do???
Joe, you did not miss that. The Condo association spent thousands (don’t have exact amount ready to hand) of dollars improving the paving of the driveway to protect the roots from damage due to weight of vehicles. That was DONE BEFORE the submission of their permit application to remove Big Red, complete with photos of driveway issues that existed BEFORE the paving project. Now, after spending all that money to protect the tree and drivers entering the parking lot, by spending more money to have the tree cut down, they will set themselves up to destroy the driveway they just paid big bucks to repair so they can need to pay for that repaving all over again less than a year later. I wonder: Are the homeowners of the Boardwalk Condominiums are aware of how much money is coming out of their homeowners dues to pay for this unnecessary tree removal? Why the city and HOA board president are so entrenched in taking this tree down is an absolute puzzle that no one has chimed in to explain.
Where is the mayor in all this? The mayor who ran on “I’ll be available in the middle of the night!” Speak up – save a tree! City Council please act!
The case wasn’t even heard because Dennis paid to serve Rose Haas, the only city employee whose name was on any documents regarding the permit and the only person with the city he has dealt with for years. (He was to serve the City Clerk.) Why can’t the city consider the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it. The appeal was done in good faith and without short cuts. It doesn’t change the facts of the appeal.
And if the city insists on the letter of the law, then Permit PLN2024-0005 should be withdrawn. According to the city’s own decision: “Permit PLN2024-0005 is approved with the following conditions: 1. This approval is valid only for the one giant sequoia depicted in the arborist report. Removal of any other trees requires a separate permit.” This finding clearly states the permit is for a tree other than Big Red, a coast redwood.
The city paid attorney’s fees to fight for this permit that was flawed throughout the process. It is NOT for a coast redwood. Cutting should not be allowed! Edmonds will end up looking worse, the more this goes on.
Thank you to Dennis for your diligence in working to save this tree and to you, Joe for your words of needed action.
Agreed also about going to court to resolve this..at the taxpayers expense..more money away from Edmonds matters and into the pockets of legalese advisors..enough!!
Save big red and all will benefit from what trees do for all of us!!!
Leave the tree alone!
I’d like to be alerted if/when we need to gather to interrupt the cutting down of this tree! Is there a text group or phone tree to save this tree?
Please share, if so! FB alerts may be seen too late.
Annie –
We all hope it doesn’t come to the necessity for direct action, that common sense and fairness will prevail, but if ‘Big Red’ is physically threatened … Write me, Dennis Weaver ChangeYourFood@hotmail.com I’ll share the Friends of ‘Big Red’ listing.
We’re not going away.
I’ve always been a believer that a coffee and a chat oftentimes lead to a solution. So, without a coffee with the City, this might be a reasonable solution to the ‘Big Red’ issue:
The City could say that upon receiving a LAND USE PETITION Appealing the City’s decision, it was brought to their attention that several errors may have been made on their part in approving PLN2024-0005 and that they’re calling for a review. The City could hold the Permit in abeyance until fully reviewed.
No one is saying anyone is irresponsible or failed in their duty. Simply a few technical errors were brought to their attention.
Who could object to the City being responsive and asking for a review of their own work? That could actually be quite refreshing. It seems to me that would be a very graceful and politically strong way out for our City and Planning Department.
Dennis Weaver
I’m behind on this topic. Anyone call for 2nd opinion on the tree or on the asphalt? I’d donate for 2nd opinion.
Nick –
According to a knowledgeable source, a request for an independent inspection of the tree by a certified arborist, with the cost of the inspection being defrayed by concerned citizens was sent to Mayor Rosen earlier this week.
Dennis Weaver
35-Year Boardwalk Resident
425.774.8971
Edmonds Planning and Development Department decision to permit the removal of Big Red is classic folly. Clearly, City Staff ignored the Tree Related Regulations codifying the wishes of the Citizens and City Council to preserve and protect the significant trees in our community. The stated intent and purpose of the tree regulations is to provide for evaluation, protection, preservation and proper maintenance of significant trees. If the City Staff did any evaluation of this tree removal permit it was flawed. How can anyone claim a Coastal Redwood Tree over 100 years old, between 80 and 90 feet tall with a 6-foot diameter not being a significant tree. Base on the picture this tree is healthy and there is no current property damage.
These types of decisions need to stop. Where is the leadership in Edmonds?
There is no good reason to remove Big Red. The pavement has been fixed. It is a healthy and stable tree.
It us now up the residents of the Boardwalk Condos to re- seize control of your HOA and demand your HOA president to withdraw the permit application. It is your magnificent tree and now it up to you to save it.
Big Red is emblematic of a deeper problem in Edmonds in that the city has no protections in place to preserve our giant trees (except in critical areas, which is a State law.) We really should finish our Tree Code which would put reasonable restrictions on tree removal on all private residential properties.
Ultimately it may be up to us , the citizens, to save Big Red. We can not allow such a precious resource to be lost, for no good reason. We must rise up to prevent the embarrassment and disgrace that it would be to lose Big Red. The struggle is not over. Please write to the media, the City Council, the head of the Development department (Ms. Hope) and Mayor Rosen, and demand that they put a halt to the permit , until The Boardwalk residents can demand the withdrawl of the permit application.
Thank you ,
We must come together to:
Save Big Red!
Is the HOA president authorized to apply for the oermit in the first case? Did the HOA Board approve at ameeting under its declarations and bylaws the submittal of the permit application? The first issue is always a question of authority and whether the permit application was properly ok’d by the HOA Board. further the owners can get their Board to rescind any action previously taken.
No, the president was not authorized to apply for the permit nor provided meeting minutes for the decision, nor involved residents in the decision. The City does not recognize this issue and hopefully the residents can coalesce and impeach the president who is not involving residents in financial decision making processes.
Seems the residents have two issues here. 1) Getting the City to recognize that the applicant was not authorized to submit it and thus it is invalid; 2) getting the owners to pressure the HOA Board to rescind the action of the Presdient and withdraw the permit application to the City. Seems prettry basic: I cannnot submit an application for anothers property and in the case of condominium, the application can only be submitted by the HOA Board as the representaive of the owners under the Condo Bylaws.
Ronald –
Thanks for your interest in the saga of ‘Big Red’. Much appreciated.
The question of Authority to have applied for the Permit to remove ’Big Red’:
I submitted to City Planning and Development the 1/18/24 Boardwalk Board of Directors Meeting Minutes without any indication of authority to apply for a permit.
Applied for the Permit, 1/29/24
Paid for the Permit, 2/2/24
City Planning & Development Department received two diametrically opposed Affidavits: Board President, Stewart, claiming authority to apply; Dennis L. Weaver stating she did not have the authority to apply for the Permit. The City Planning & Development Department arbitrarily chose the Stewart Affidavit over mine for Approval of the Permit.
Unfortunately for Homeowners, the Boardwalk Board Follows no RCW or WUCIOA Rules & Regs required of HOA Boards: Presentation of a Proposal, Discussion, Motion Offered, a Second to the Motion, Discussion and Vote, with recorded Minutes shared with Homeowners.
The Boardwalk Boards have gone rouge without any Homeowner involvement.
To make a change in the Board’s methods would requite suing them to obey the RCW’s.
‘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 Weaver
35-Year Boardwalk Resident
425.774.8971
Thanks Dennis. Based on my own condo experience, the COA Board owns and controls the common elements tied to the Condo. So a Board approved motion at a duly noticed meeting per the Bylaws would give them the authority to apply for the permit to manage the common elements, i.e remove a tree. I know that there are old and new RCW provisions for condos depending on when they were incorporated and there are differences. But it seems you are working on this. Good luck. I love redwood trees (both tyoes) and takinig one out for anything but a real danger is criminal.
I understand the need for the City to comply with its codes. What I don’t understand is why not enough attention is being paid to making sure that what is happening on the ground does not contradict the City’s policies.
If you go to the City’s website on the Planning Division page and click on Plans/Long Range Planning, there is a link for Tree Code Updates, which states that these codes are important in order to help implement the City’s 2019 Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP). The link “Track Progress” sends you to the “Tree Code Updates” page, where you will find the message “Page under construction until further notice.” Had a code for the protection of extraordinary trees been adopted, Big Red’s life would not be hanging in the balance.
The Edmonds’s tree codes are, unfortunately, not in compliance with its tree and tree-related policies that include not only the UFMP, but also the 2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, and the Edmonds Climate Action Plan, where tree canopy equates to increased carbon sequestration. When the City adopts policies, it must consider the consequences of what happens when there is no plan for implementation.
The optics are not good for the City to continue to remain silent behind the “improper service” defense of the complaint. The community highly values this tree and it should be saved!
Dear VALUED City Employees with a VISION for the FUTURE of Edmonds, Please nudge everyone in Edmonds City Government, from the Mayor to City Council, to Parks & Recreation, and departments across the board (including the City Arborist!) to take action to prevent the removal of Big Red on Fifth Avenue. As I see it, this entire process has been flawed. And that’s okay/can be forgiven – the city must back pedal and make it right. Please honor the land acknowledgment (as in this case, it often times seems so empty) that is repeatedly read, and then summarily ignored, at each city governmental gathering/decision. I believe that our indigenous friends and neighbors would be on board to save Big Red (or at least ask her for permission to end her life – and for what?)!!! Please do the right thing and withdraw the permit to cut down this magnificent tree. We need more tree canopy, not less; we are a Tree City (supposedly). Let us honor the old saying that goes…the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago [hey – Big Red was planted over one hundred years ago]. The second best time is today. On my knees, Barb Steller
The tree should be saved. After reading all of the comments that is what the people of Edmonds want. Elected officials please listen to your constituents. I bet if you ask the folks that planted the tree their opinion, they would be horrified to hear that it’s going to be cut down for the sake of more pavement
Edmonds has long been known for its warm community and stewardship of its amazing natural beauty. The City’s decision to double down on removing such an iconic tree calls both into question.
As climate change accelerates and the PNW draws population, large trees will be key to maintaining the clean air and livability Edmonds is known for. Protecting a tree of this immense stature and health should be a given in a setting where it has space to grow without impacting structures. This is bigger than one tree–Big Red represents the many majestic trees which will fall if Edmonds fails to enact a stronger ordinance and limit the spread of pavement.
The City’s reputation for transparent and accessible government is also at risk. The City Attorney was apparently directed to seize upon a document service technicality, in order to defend a permit with obvious flaws. (incorrect arborist report, incorrect GIS location, and the stated infrastructure need already completed, to name three) This strategy could not have been chosen by the City Attorney unilaterally.
Thankfully, many citizens, council members and local journalists are standing up for the trees our health depends on. They are demanding action and transparency from the mayor. I hope he is listening.
Sandy – To your point about this being bigger than one tree. Just a week ago, someone was walking on Pine Street near City Park and noticed another mature tree being taken down. At first, she had thought it was being trimmed, but when she next walked by, the tree was gone. How many are coming down, or are slated to come down, that we don’t even know about?
I sent the following email to Mayor Mike Rosen and Shane Hope on 1/28/25 with no response. They are well aware of the citizen outcry to save this tree but are choosing to approve the permit, regardless. I’m afraid it will take more than comments on MEN to save this tree.
Mayor MIke and Shane,
I just read on MEN that the permit has been approved to remove “Big Red” from the 5th Avenue Boardwalk condo complex. After reading the many comments, I’d be shocked if you both allowed this tree to be removed as it’s not a sequoia as indicated in the permit. It’s a redwood based on what was shared. If I missed something, please educate us on MEN. If what is stated is true, then my ask is to have you both intervene before we spend more valuable resources fighting this.
I’m hoping you will figure out a quick solution to keep this tree along the gateway path of downtown Edmonds. Saving this tree could be a symbolic “win” for the citizens which we all need right now.
Best regards,
Kim Bayer-Augustavo
Sandy,
I wholeheartedly agree with the following excerpt from your comment, “As climate change accelerates and the PNW draws population, large trees will be key to maintaining the clean air and livability Edmonds is known for. Protecting a tree of this immense stature and health should be a given in a setting where it has space to grow without impacting structures. This is bigger than one tree–Big Red represents the many majestic trees which will fall if Edmonds fails to enact a stronger ordinance and limit the spread of pavement.”
I am so disappointed in everyone involved in trying to have this tree removed. It is such a beautiful, stately tree. The pavement has been repaired, and it is my understanding from the original news article, that the wrong photos were shown to the board members who made the decision to allow the tree to be chopped down. Was the judge who upheld the decision made aware of this? I would like this new Citizen Advisory Board to get involved with saving this tree. How about hearing from the Edmonds Tree Board as well? Where too are the Climate Action folks?
The Tree Board is currently suspended while Edmonds works through its financial issues.
The City has only suspended City-sponsored meetings of the Tree Board. There’s nothing to prevent Tree Board members from meeting on their own to offer advice to anyone who will listen. Their City email accounts were not suspended, so they can communicate and do things. All it takes is willingness…and some leadership.
Hi Dawn – Members of the Edmonds Climate Advisory Board (CAB), of which I am president, and other Edmonds’ climate activists, have been speaking out about this issue for some time now. Unfortunately, the fate of Big Red is in the hands of the Boardwalk Condo Owners Association (COA), which could still decide not to take the tree down, although there have been no signs that they will do so. What is currently unknown is whether or not all the condo unit owners are aware of the decision which was made on their behalf by their COA, and whether the Washington Condo Law was followed by their board. On the other side of the coin, the City is required, under law, to abide by its tree codes when issuing a tree removal permit. Unfortunately, protecting the City’s heritage trees is not covered by an existing code, and this must be rectified before more magnificent trees that sequester carbon are lost unnecessarily. An action item in the City’s Climate Action Plan states that the City will “adopt a canopy coverage target” in 2024, but that was not done. Speaking at public comment at a council meeting, or writing to the Mayor and council, may help to remind them of all the reasons why heritage trees must be protected., and soon.
CAB should be disbanded. It’s a great example of Govt waste. Ridiculous.
This is not a government agency. It’s a volunteer-run nonprofit, is my understanding.
Hi Matt G – I just want to reaffirm MyEdmondsNews response to your comment: The Edmonds Climate Advisory Board, known as CAB, is indeed an all-volunteer nonprofit.
While I understand wanting your pavement to remain in good shape and not have costly repairs, this tree has been here longer than your condo. I have two large trees in my front yard, one a sequoia. My driveway is wavey because of the root system which is an annoyance at best. Have I decided to remove these massive trees because they are an inconvenience and costly to maintain? No. I’ve toyed with removal over the 25+ years I’ve owned my home but in the end I look out at the stately massive trunks from my front room windows and think these trees are more important than any cost or inconvenience to me. Come on Boardwalk Condos, show Big Red and the earth the respect they deserve.
I’d like to take a moment to THANK all the friends of ‘Big Red’ who have taken the time out of their busy schedules to write such thoughtful, reasonable and reasoned requests to SAVE ‘Big Red’, both as Comments on our FAVORITE Community Newsletter, “MyEdmondsNews”, and thoughts sent directly to Mayor Rosen, City Council Members and City Planning and Development.
In addition to the ‘formal’ cases being made, I received this in a personal e-mail that warmed my heart: “I will give BIG RED a hug very soon.”
‘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 Weaver
35-Year Boardwalk Resident
425.774.8971
Dennis Weaver and Others concerned about Big Red and the large trees that make Edmonds a great place to live – – Please make your comments at the upcoming City Council Meeting that starts at 6pm this Tuesday. The City Council has a public comment period that allows each individual 3 minutes to make public comments to the Mayor and the City Council members. The meeting is also accessible by Zoom and citizens can comment from home.
My read of all the comments on irregularities in the application materials and adherence to City policies suggests to me that the City (i.e., the MAYOR) should retract the permit and revisit the whole situation IF the Homeowners Association indeed wants to properly reapply with proper documentation and authority. I have to question too if a proper environmental assessment was done on issuance of the permit since the “irregularities” should have been revealed through that process before the City’s Planning Director could have issued the permit.
It is noteworthy that the City’s Planning Department Director who would have issued the permit in 2024 has since been fired by Mayor Rosen. So…. it’s time to get the Mayor to do the right thing and retract the permit.
The City Council needs to hear the irregularities so they too can request the Mayor retract the Permit.
The group who feels they get to decide what property owners do with their land is the same group that protests everything in Edmonds. They dont respect our votes, property rights, judges opinion or anything else. This is what entitlement looks like. You can’t always get what you want.
Dennis, you should know that your homeowners can remove officers from the HOA board. It’s not terribly difficult to do, especially if you feel they are not following protocol. We did it twice in our condo, when the presidents were spending recklessly, and without homeowners approval.
But if you try sometimes you can get what you need!
Matt –
Thanks for jumping in. A full and transparent conversation is always best.
I don’t know the Friends of ‘Big Red’ to be ‘protesters’, just a group of people who value the remaining greenery of Edmonds.
Individuals may have raised concern over various issues in the past, but that’s their right to speak and I applaud them for being active in our Community.
I hear/read no disrespect of “our votes, property rights, judges or anything else.”
We’re simply asking our City to protect ‘Big Red’, a living historical asset of our Edmonds
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/03/history-big-red-and-the-lewis-and-wilson-family-legacy/, as is oftentimes done with historical buildings.
Asking the Boardwalk not to remove ‘Big Red’ is not the ‘taking of property’, but rather asking only to preserve some natural beauty for the benefit of all. As someone wrote, “‘Big Red’ stands tall at the gateway to Edmonds” welcoming Residents and Visitors alike.
It’s also an ask of the Boardwalk to value history: The Wilson children and their descendants still live close by, or in Edmonds proper. In fact, the great-great-grandchildren of Mabel and Millard Lewis can easily walk over and gaze at Big Red, and realize that their ancestors planted Big Red nearly 102 years ago.
Dennis
Thanks Georgina. I’m happy to know that you are involved. I will again write city council and the new Mayor. Our trees are of incredible value to everyone.
Tia, I thought the tree board was a volunteer, unpaid group. If that is so, why would the be suspended due to budget cuts?
Hi Dawn – While the Edmonds Tree Board is a volunteer, unpaid group, the City requires that advisory groups be assigned a staff liaison who attends their meetings. During its budgetary deliberations, the City found that the staff resources provided to codified groups amounted to a very large amount of money. Some of the groups are ranked as being essential to government operations, e.g., the Planning Board, and have stayed in place, but all the others were paused for two years. The Edmonds Tree Board is in the process of becoming a community group for the pause period. One reason cities require a staff liaison attend every codified group meeting is to ensure that they adhere to their charter and follow their roles and responsibilities.
As a former Tree Board member for five years serving with Bill Phipps, Bill’s comments are spot on. Edmonds continues to be a Tree City, but there are so many issues with the implementation of the Tree Code and the Urban Forest Management Plan and the maintenance of a certain percentage tree canopy. Other cities (Redmond and Shoreline are two that I recall from my Tree Board years) have done a far better job with these issues, but Edmonds seems to just drag their feet. Also, being a representative on our HOA Board for nine years, the HOA Board involved with Big Red should be ashamed of themselves to allow their President to overstep her boundaries. SAVE BIG RED and now!
Frank: Thanks for the insights. Have you considered looking over the curreent code and suggesting some amendments to improve it?? A group of us are looking at the critical area code to suggest some imorivements to process and substance as the city will be doing its code update later this year.
And from my condo board experience, I agree with you about the unauthorized action of the COA President. Based on the bylaws I have seen from others, this would not be acceptable. Save Big Red.
So sad to see the wheels of government turn in some cities… As you enter Edmonds on the freeway, it says you’re entering Edmonds city of trees… Who wasted money on that sign? If we continue to want to take them down….
Big red at the boardwalk is more than just a tree. It’s the biggest tree on fifth Avenue going up and down the street… It is a landmark tree and the focus point of our whole property. It attracts many lovers of trees as people walk up and down the street and admire it. I understand it is older and the roots were a problem… That was until we had a $4 million remodel at our condo… Now everything is completely rejuvenated, including the pavement and the roots to not propose a problem. Why must this tree come down now? Why did the condo association go to the city with misinformation? This condo association that wants to take the tree down brought pictures in that were years old… Not current pictures so why was the permit issued if it was not in any danger to anyone?
Given the fact that misinformation was given to the city, why isn’t anyone challenging that? It seems only right that the decision to remove the tree was based on inaccurate information.
Dawn …
I raised these issues at last evening’s City Council Meeting:
1) Edmonds GIS map clearly shows ’Big Red’ is sited within a Critical Area. Those Permits fall under ECDC 23.40. ‘Big Red’ was inexplicably approved for removal under ECDC 20.13, a landscaping permit.
2) City Planning failed in its due diligence and relied on a faulty arborist report from July 2021. The Permit was issued for a nonexistent tree, a giant sequoia, making the Permit to remove ‘Big Red’, a coast redwood, invalid:
“DECISION
Based on findings, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff finds the design review for file number PLN2024-0005 is APPROVED with the following conditions:
This approval is valid only for the one giant sequoia depicted in the arborist report.
Removal of any other trees requires a separate permit.”
3) Evidentiary PHOTOS submitted were SIMPLY re- dated from July 2021 to September 2024, and without a site visit by Planning, were misleading as representing conditions that do not exist.
4) Edmonds Planning, in their Staff Report of Approval, ADDED LANGUAGE NOT FOUND in the arborist report.
5) City Planning arbitrarily chose one Boardwalk Resident’s Affidavit over the other for Approval of the Permit.
I ask that the City do the right thing and cancel the Permit that was incorrectly issued.
‘Big Red’ – a living historical asset of our Edmonds.