Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Editor:
The final insult to “Big Red” by the Boardwalk Condominium Board and the City of Edmonds Planning and Development Department:
The Boardwalk Condominium Board described a Blue Cloak White Fir tree and submitted it as their choice to replace Big Red in their Permit Application that was integral to the Approval process. Ref: PLN2024-0005 Staff Report with attachments pdf, Attachment 5, Page 8.
However, a spindly, little deciduous tree was recently planted to replace ‘Big Red’. That tree is not in compliance with the Approved PLN2024-0005 Permit issued by the City of Edmonds Planning & Development Department!
When I notified Michael Clugston, planning and development director, that the Boardwalk Board had no intention of following their Approved PLN2024-0005 Permit for Replanting, he wrote back: “Thank you for the information – the City will respond as needed to ensure compliance with the issued permit.”
If the non-enforcement of the planting of a Blue Cloak White Fir is allowed to stand, the City’s very own planning and development department will be the embarrassment of Edmonds. The many, many, many in the Edmonds community — aware of the saga of Big Red, will realize that any statement made by the City of Edmonds about their caring for the green environment is a falsehood.
In memory of ‘Big Red’ …
Dennis L. Weaver
Edmonds
This is a travesty, and I don’t appreciate the treatment you received when expressing your concern in a straightforward manner to the City. Shame on them.
Thank you for making us aware of this violation of the permit and the permit process. This is a big peeve of mine, the replacement of evergreens withdeciduous trees. I had a forester tell me recently that one reason this was good was that the “views” got better in the winter” with a deciduous tree replacement. One might hope that evergreens would be evaluated for future habitat as well. I share the previous commenter’s chagrin in the initial reply from the Planning Dept. .
Will anyone be expressing this at tonight’s Council meeting? I am happy to come and lend support or make a comment in support of this.
The plannin and development board is a sham
please read the requirement the city has set for a replacement tree being removed. A 8ft deciduous tree or a 6 ft evergreen. So much misinformation has been spread by people unfamiliar. I wish there were more people p—ed off at the monster houses being built on Sunset. Here is the code and a 8ft maple tree was planted and plans were revised at the city
D. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. One-and-one-half-inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
David Goren
David, I share your disdain for those god awful eyesores on Sunset Ave. I scowl and curse them every time I walk by. Shame on the developers and the people who bought those hideous offensive things and shame on the city for allowing it.
David, I find those houses on Sunset quite vulgar. The builders/architects, as well as the home owners clearly don’t care about the neighborhood, or the neighbors. Every time I walk by I feel so bad for the folks to the south of the newest monstrosity who’ve had their view to the north obliterated. The City of Edmonds needs to reign in approving the builder/homeowner equivalent of a jacked-up pick-up truck.
Agreed. We are experiencing that as well south of Pine. Totally opposite of the charm we live here for.
Who ever frustrates a legitimate municipal guide should be held accountable. However, if the City is delinquent vacating authority by sloth or polyfavs, then, throw the buggers out!
Dennis Weaver wasn’t happy when we cut the tree down. Now he’s not happy when we plant a new one. He’s never happy, because he likes to stir the pot.
The previous tree was starting to rot where the two trunks came together. So while Dennis gets to play the noble defender of trees, I was part of a group that was preserving the future viability of our community.
Finally, enough with the anthropomorphizing of trees. Don’t get me wrong, trees are important, very important. The Amazon rain forest, sometimes referred to as the world’s lungs, is being cut down at an alarming rate. Go protest that.
Hi Geof, there was no rot between the tree trunks, I inspected it myself. The seemingly illegal and poor quality substitute to what was permitted will never regain the functions the Sequoia provided. It was a sham decision by the Board who has never consulted with its residents. Preserving the viability of your community? Your units would have been worth more if a mature tree was there. There was no reason for its removal.
Right up until it fell in a windstorm and crushed a one of our buildings and/or killed some people.
The process of risk assessment is methodic. It takes into account the architecture of the tree as well as many other factors. This tree was found to pose low risk of tree part or total tree failure. There are qualifications certified arborists can achieve to determine tree risk. In this case failure was improbable and the fork in the trunk could have been supported by cables. You were not staring at a high risk tree.
Dendrophobia strikes again.
Katy, thank you for sharing your expertise.
David –
Yes, you’re correct, the City allows the consideration of planting either a deciduous tree or an evergreen tree, HOWEVER, here’s the PLN2024-0005 Permit Replanting Plan APPROVED by the City Planning and Development Department: “One (1) Blue Cloak White Fir (Abies concolor ‘Blue Cloak’) will be planted in place of the removed tree.” Ref: PLN2024-0005 Staff Report with attachments pdf, Attachment 5, Page 8 of 15
The Blue Cloak White Fir was the Boardwalk Board’s submitted choice and was integral to the Permit approval process.
When I notified Michael Clugston, Planning and Development Director, that the Boardwalk Board had no intention of following their Approved PLN2024-0005 Permit for Replanting, Michael wrote back: “Thank you for the information – the City will respond as needed to ensure compliance with the issued permit.”
Why require a Permit process if stipulations don’t have to be followed and can be changed at will after the Permit is issued?
In memory of ‘Big Red’ …
Dennis L. Weaver
36 Year Boardwalk Resident
425.774.8971
Good evening Dennis, thanks to your letter, I did look closely at the deciduous tree at the previous location of Big Red. It is hard to see in the dusk, due to the lacy, thin branches. The approved plans were revised at the city? Without any public notice? Seems odd. I for one, am glad that there are people in Edmonds watching to see if a department with approved actions sticks to those actions. If they do not, and there are appeals, requests for revisions etc, where can the overriding code be found which governs these revisions ?
Dana –
Thanks for taking a look.
See my recent Comment posted below titled:
“Mayor Rosen’s answer to me raises a new issue of concern: Replanting without any approval:”
In memory of ‘Big Red’ …
Dennis L. Weaver
36 Year Boardwalk Resident
425.774.8971
This is truly an insult upon injury.
Thank you Dennis for your heroic efforts in trying to save “Big Red.”
The unnecessary destruction of “Big Red” was a sacrilege and an abomination. Big Red was a healthy magnificent tree in the prime of its life. There simply was no good reason for its removal.
Shame on the City of Edmonds for allowing it to happen.
It’s a disgrace and an embarrassment.
And the replacement tree was suppossed to be a conifer, according to the permit issued by the City. That Maple tree will never give the environmental benefits that a Fir tree would, over its life time.
When will Edmonds ever get its Tree Code done that would restrict tree removal on private residential properties , especially Landmark Trees , those trees over 30 inches trunk diameter ?
Edmonds has a long ways to go before we can truly call ourselves a Tree City USA , which we claim.
Our forest canopy, which means large conifers, are a necessary part of our city infrastructure, especially in light of our rapidly changing climate.
I’m not mad. I wouldn’t want people meddling in my landscaping either
After having attended many, many planning and development meetings, I agree, they are a joke. And by the way, a 1.5 inch caliper tree is a replacement joke for any mature tree that’s removed. I have had several discussions over the years with different planning and development board members regarding this tree replacement issue. Their answer is always the same, “It’s city ordinance.” When asked why can’t that be changed, I get the, “Well, it’s up to the city.” Next question, “Aren’t you part of the city?”
The city can decide what happens to trees and planting and replacement of trees on city property. Privately owned property is just that.
Mayor Rosen’s answer to me raises a new issue of concern: Replanting without any approval:
I received this statement from Mayor Rosen:
“It is my understanding that the HOA is proposing to make revisions to the previously approved replanting plan for the tree removal permit in PLN2024-0005.” If the HOA is just now “proposing to make revisions”, then, without any Permit whatsoever to do so, the Boardwalk Board has planted a spindly, little deciduous tree to replace ‘Big Red’ … without approval!
Was the City Planning and Development Department not aware of this unilateral action taken by the Boardwalk Board?
What’s the Fine/Penalty for planting a non-approved tree without a Permit? Is there any, or is it Permitting rules be damned.
I ask again, why require any Permit process if stipulations don’t have to be followed and can be changed at will after a Permit is issued?
And in this case, side-stepping a PLN2024-0005 requirement and planting a different species without any approval.
In memory of ‘Big Red’ …
Dennis L. Weaver
36 Year Boardwalk Resident
425.774.8971
Nathaniel, I suspect that your comment caused a dramatically increased search on Google for the meaning of dendrophobia. I am not surprised that it has its “roots” in Ancient Greece, a place you know well.
I just assumed it meant you were afraid to go into your extra bedroom that you recently converted into a Den.
A classic bureaucratic paper shuffle!
On 10/16/25, the Planning and Development Director stated to me: “The City will respond as needed to ensure compliance with the issued permit.”
That turns out not to be true!
Compliance with the issued Permit would be the planting of a Cloak White Fir tree to replace ‘Big Red’, and that specific tree was integral to the Permit approval process.
It was determined, via a 1/6/26 e-mail, that the Boardwalk Board, without any approval whatsoever, planted a spindly, little deciduous tree to replace ‘Big Red’ in violation of the Approved PLN2024-0005 Replanting requirement, Attachment 5, Page 8.
I asked if the Department will impose a Fine/Penalty for the Boardwalk Board’s actions?
The 1/15/26 answer: “Nothing additional will be required from your HOA and the revised plan will be able to be approved.”
Approval is moot … the tree is already in the ground.
Submit one tree species, ignore a Permit requirement, plant a different one, and then the City simply approves it after the fact, effectively waiving a Permit agreement.
If that’s acceptable, what’s the point of having a Permit process at all?
The public should know the ECDC Permitting process is a shame and the Permitting/Approval process is a classic bureaucratic paper shuffle!
In memory of ‘Big Red’ …
Dennis L. Weaver
36 Year Boardwalk Resident
Thank you for continuing to pursue this Dennis. Very sad.