Editor:
There’s a public hearing Tuesday by the Edmonds City Council for an ordinance protecting landmark trees. It’s more than just policy – it takes the temperature of Edmonds’ mood towards conservation. We talk about environmentalism, but will we walk the walk?
My own backyard is home to a giant cedar — 100 inches around. It blocks what would be a pretty epic view. The only detached ADU that can coexist with it is a Fisher Price playhouse. That cedar also absorbs Co2, filters pollutants, cools our summers and manages stormwater. Its roots took hold before I was born, and its life will hopefully extend beyond mine to shade generations I’ll never meet.
Urban tree conservation is a powerful gift we all can give, whether through advocacy or choosing to preserve trees on our own land. Property rights and environmentalism doesn’t have to be at odds. Tree codes should set clear standards that homeowners and developers can respect, while also protecting landmark trees and incentivizing site planning around those trees. Talking about trees as our ally rather than an obstacle to be rid of could go a long way towards reframing the conversation.
Chelsea Rudd
Edmonds
I agree with the points Chelsea makes. The issue of protecting landmark trees should be seen as a win-win whereby we can all continue to reap the benefits of these remarkable tall giants. Once they are gone, we realize how much we miss their presence. All their amazing attributes from which we benefit, come rain or come shine, should not to be taken for granted. The Work Plan, Exhibit A of the interim ordinance, shows a timeline that will get us to new tree codes. With some collaborative effort on all our parts, we should finally get there this time around.
During the April 21st City Council Meeting, Council President Neil Tibbott, Council President Pro Tem Susan Paine, Council member Will Chen, Council member Jenna Nand, Council member Chris Eck and Council member Michelle Dotsch VOTED their VALUES in APPROVING UNANIMOUSLY the Interim Ordinance to Prohibit the Removal of Certain Landmark Trees on Private Property.
On June 10th, I would hope those VALUES remain consistent, providing a host of environmental and esthetic benefits to our Edmonds.
In memory of ‘Big Red’ …
Dennis Weaver
Beautifully written Chelsea, bravo.
Our trees are a shared resource. What you do or don’t do with your trees affects others around you .
And not just you, but our whole environment.
Our trees are a community resource to be taken care of and nourished. I liken our forest canopy to our shared streams here in Edmonds. What we do upstream affects those downstream.
Here’s hoping for a committed plan to finish our Tree Code.
Who is managing this tree code update plan within the
City? How can we help you ? There’s a lot of smart people around here who are very knowledgable about tree codes. Is the City open to citizen involvement on this endeavor.? There is no need to reinvent the wheel , let’s follow those tree codes, of cities around us, that are working and enforceable.
Thank you , from the trees…
Sounds reasonable. I was a supporter of big red. On the other hand Edmonds has spent an unknown amount to me on litigation related to the removal of small trees on private property. Edmonds lost in court and was ordered to pay $400,000 to the defendant (fact check me on this one please).
Let’s do this right and ensure we strike a balance between our environment, costs, and property owner rights. Stick to big, old trees. Provide exemption for safety or property protection (requires a few expert opinions).
Correction ‘plaintiff’ (property owner) awarded damages.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/judge-rules-city-must-pay-damages-in-tree-code-case/
So well said, Chelsea, and thanks for mentioning CO2 — often overlooked with trees, as I said in the comment I submitted on the City website over the weekend:
A crucial reason to protect our trees – beyond the more obvious ones like habitat, air quality, heat shielding, and natural beauty – is especially relevant for landmark trees: carbon sequestration. Edmonds’ landmark trees are our great local warriors in fighting climate change and helping to deliver on the City’s Climate Action Plan goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions – where we are woefully behind the curve. A one-hundred-year-old tree can sequester more than a ton of carbon. Left undisturbed, it will continue to do its climate work for as long as it stands – without ever sending the City an invoice for its environmental services. Landmark trees do the work of an army of smaller trees. Given our local fiscal crisis, how can the city allow continued removal of free resources that expertly perform a complex task, never take a sick day, and all the while contribute to the beauty that Edmonds residents treasure and that lures visitors and businesses? “Big Red” was not a trivial loss. Let it not have been killed in vain: please protect our landmark trees as only City government can.
Chelsea Rudd,
Thank you for that cogent comparison. Yes, trees are allies. We have co-existed since time immemorial, and most of the benefits have been mutual. Now we have the power to take life away from our friends and cohabitants the trees. They have sheltered and shaded us, provided materials for our use and fruits to sustain us as well as exchanging the air we exhale for the air we inhale. They filter the air we breathe, giving us protection from hazards people have unleashed into the atmosphere.
I agree with Bill Phipps in comparing our forest canopy to a stream. The analogy extends to the stream of invisible (mostly) air we depend on for health. We have had instances when insufficient filtration has made the air we breath toxic to both us and the trees. We owe it to the trees to protect them so they may continue to gift us with all the benefits they offer. As the ad says: “priceless.” It’s time to decide what value we will put on our precious community member, the trees.
Chelsea, thank you for that powerful letter. You remind us that Edmonds has a choice to make — not just about policy, but about values.
As the Chelsea shared, a 100-inch cedar in their yard may block a view, but it gives so much more in return — clean air, carbon sequestration, stormwater management, summer cooling, and a legacy of shade for future generations.
Protecting our urban forest doesn’t mean giving up on housing or property rights. We can plan smarter. We can build thoughtfully. And we can do it in a way that honors the natural heritage that makes Edmonds such a special place to live.
Let’s use this moment to prioritize long-term stewardship over short-term convenience. Trees are not obstacles to progress — they are living infrastructure and quiet guardians of our quality of life. I urge our city leaders and neighbors to support the interim tree ordinance and help shape a future where conservation and community go hand in hand.
Thank you, Chelsea. Trees are one of our precious resources. For 30 years, I lived in upper Arlington Ohio, a wooded city with trees, dating back to the civil war. In the 1980s, homeowners started to cut down some of these beautiful trees in order to add a family room. With the insistence of many of foresighted community residents, the city formed a tree commission and hired a forestry specialist to educate the citizens and protect the trees. For more information: https://upperarlingtonoh.gov/parks-recreation/parks-forestry/
Trees do so much work for us such as the carbon sequestration already mentioned. I will add another one. Tree roots will work to stabilize all the steep slopes on the hills in Edmonds. This is really important work that should also be considered in any tree ordinance.
Thank you, Chelsea, and others who have commented, for reminding us of the critical benefits that trees provide our community. As development brings greater density, we need to ensure that these majestic protectors of our health and of the character of Edmonds, are protected. As President Franklin Roosevelt stated back in 1935, “Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.” Recognizing the importance of our trees as the lungs of our city is even more important now, in 2025.
The image of trees as allies is particularly apt, thanks, Chelsea Rudd, for a timely reminder. A view is a transient thing; ours was obscured by a senior retirement facility (within accepted height limits!) and, too bad but another, of the Space Needle, was obstructed by downtown housing development. Useful as that housing may have been, and long as it may last, it will not be as useful as a healthy cedar tree.
Let’s support the adoption of a tree code that our allies, the trees, can continue their contributions to our community.
Thank you Chelsea and commenters. Just yesterday, I was so thankful I have a big old maple in my backyard – it was 12 degrees cooler under my tree than in the front yard, so I did some forest bathing!
Regarding the trees vs more housing issue – thanks to Pam for pointing out that with careful planning we truly can have density and trees. We need to work together to develop the correct codes and ensure developers follow them. Hoping for a good outcome in the City Council hearing today.
Thank you for this thoughtful perspective. Too often, trees are seen as a barrier to development instead of as essential infrastructure. In reality, trees help address many of the very challenges our city faces.
Trees reduce urban heat, absorb stormwater, sequester carbon, and improve air quality. They support wildlife, prevent erosion, and even contribute to our physical and mental health. These aren’t just nice side effects—they’re critical functions, especially as our region deals with the pressures of growth and climate change.
In Edmonds, where most trees are on private land, it’s especially important to have policies that support responsible tree care and protect legacy trees. I support efforts like the interim tree ordinance to keep these vital natural systems in place. Trees aren’t just scenery—they’re part of the solution.
Nick Lopez,
Thanks for again adding valuable information to highlight the complexity of this issue. The Tree Code is about regulating trees on private property owners’ land. The Rimmer case demonstrates that not all private trees should be regulated by our Tree Code.
Arlene,
The trees you reference in your excellent RV https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/04/reader-view-opinion-edmonds-development-code-must-protect-steep-slopes-in-westgate-neighborhood/ are not regulated by Edmonds Tree Code. They are supposed to be protected by our Critical Areas Ordinance. However, our Mayors/staff have a decades long history of favoring development over enforcement of our CAO, which resulted in the damage to the trees you provided photographs of in your RV. The developer obtained Mayor/staff approval to build too close to the steep slope.
I wonder what a tree ordinance will accomplish if the city won’t enforce it. Just recently, a neighbor removed probably the 7th perfectly healthy, tall, landmark+ sized tree from his yard. I asked him if he had a permit since it was a landmark tree. He said he did. He proudly relayed that all he had to do was tell the permit issuer that it was a “nuisance,” and he got the permit. It sat between his and another neighbor’s yard, near the road. He had to pave his second driveway over the root bump and didn’t like it. Plus, being a tree, it dripped sap sometimes. I used all the previously mentioned benefits of having a tree canopy to get him to rethink this one. He waved his hand pointing at other tall trees in the distance and said, “there’s plenty more around here.” Well, there’s none left on our block, and a lot have been removed elsewhere — all landmark trees. He told me to have a nice day. I told him to have the day he deserved. I’m thinking that similar to the Big Red permit issuing, that the city employee responsible for checking these things out will sign off on any request. Shameful.
The Interim Tree Ordinance is only the bare minimum, protecting the biggest, oldest trees. It is an important step, much better than what is now in place, but Edmonds must remember that trees are one of the cheapest, readily available tools to circumvent climate disaster by drawing excess carbon dioxide from the air. They also help mitigate the increases in flooding and heating that climate breakdown will bring. We absolutely must find a way to allow density while protecting even smaller trees, especially around streams and slopes. There is a lot of work to do. As I have tried to read the existing code to understand how it affects trees, I have found it so confusing, with bits and pieces spread all over. It is easy to see why city officials may fall short when issuing permits. We can do better with a more comprehensive code protecting trees.
Thank you, Chelsea, first for your decision to protect the tree in your yard, even though it obstructs your view. You are so right that trees provide many benefits: CO2 capture, stormwater management, cooling our summers. You are also right that we need to reframe the conversation to think of trees – and in fact all of nature – as our ally rather than an obstacle.
Please protect our trees!!! They are so important for our health and for wildlife.
I agree with you, Chelsea — trees are our allies in living happy, healthy lives in Edmonds.
As the climate warms, heat waves will only continue to become more severe. Preserving our trees is one of the best ways to cool our community and protect our neighbors’ health.
While some may not notice the loss of one tree, the loss of many trees over time would leave our beloved city with lower air quality, higher temperatures, and less beauty — ultimately, leaving it a less desirable place to live and visit, which none of us want for our economy or well-being. I support the tree ordinance because protecting legacy trees is not only the right thing to do, but also the safe, smart thing to do for our community.
Chelsea Rudd, so you are willing to keep your old cedar forever it seems. That is wonderful. I have 20 or so big evergreen (mostly) trees on my property. They probably each individually meet heritage guidelines. Are you going to tell me that just because YOU like to keep your tree, I should HAVE to keep my trees? I like my trees, but don’t want to be MADE to keep them. When I sell my property maybe the next person won’t like trees. You are removing my property rights. And another thing – why is no one telling all the tree lovers to plant their own trees. They grow very quickly. It is my opinion that no one without trees, with only environmentally unsound lawn and some bushes in their yard should be able to complain. Plant your own trees folks and leave the rest of us and our property rights alone.
Agreed Tracy, none of us want others telling us what to do with our property and trees. Trees are a renewable resource and also have a lifespan. We can always plant more. We recently removed a very large cedar and a very large hemlock from our front yard and from the outside they looked perfectly fine, but both had root rot and would have fallen down at some point in one of our windstorms. Maybe on our house as the were close. Also, it was a food desert for animals underneath these giant tree canopies, I had no bees, butterflies, frogs or any animals that you would normally see in a yard with lots of flowers and not as much shade. After we took out our big trees, we scrapped the whole front yard, took out the grass, added wood chip walkways, dwarf fruit trees, apple and pear, blueberries, strawberries, and lots of flowers like hellabore which bloom in the winter and anemone that blooms in late summer and now my whole front yard is alive where it never was with the giant trees. You can always plant more trees and I don’t understand why people don’t get that. But nobody is telling me I can’t cut trees on my own property.
A hundred years ago most of Western Washington was logged, and look at how everything has grown back, now we have more trees than ever.