EDMONDS—Not long ago, cutting a tree down in Edmonds could result in a forest’s worth of paperwork. But in December, the Snohomish County Superior Court ruled against the city’s “tree mandate,” which had required property owners to provide a “restoration plan” if they intended to remove sizable trees from their land.
The same month, the City of Edmonds approved a permit to remove a 103-year-old coastal redwood, known as “Big Red,” from the Boardwalk Condominiums parking lot. Condo resident Dennis Weaver filed a petition against this permit in Superior Court, only to be countered by a petition from the Edmonds City Attorney (Lighthouse Law, a private firm that also represents Maple Valley in King County).
Lighthouse successfully asked that Weaver’s petition be dismissed because he had incorrectly listed the defendant as the Planning and Development Department (EPDD) instead of the Edmonds City Clerk. The EPDD website states that its responsibilities include “land use information and approvals” and “coordination of development review processes.”
On March 31, the removal process began. Big Red, 100 feet tall and 61 years the elder to the condominiums it borders, stood solemnly as the sun rose over sea mist. Protesters gathered at 7:30 in the morning; a group of residents and tree lovers alike formed a human chain around the tree before the Edmonds Police Department (EPD) arrived and threatened obstructors with arrest.
“Five cops seems like a lot to handle an old man,” said a condo tenant, who asked to speak anonymously. He suggested that the complex’s Homeowners Association (HOA) had forced the tree’s removal in spite of opposition from some condo owners – including the landlord of his own unit. “The HOA would rather chop [the tree] than just fix the parking lot and pay for foundation support,” he commented.
“Most people don’t want this tree cut down,” Edmonds resident Karen Grimsby told the Lynnwood Times. “It could live a thousand years… How could that be less important than a parking lot?”
Grimsby also said that the HOA’s permit incorrectly identified Big Red as a Sequoiadendron giganteum (giant sequoia) instead of a Sequoia sempervirens (coastal redwood), but that the City of Edmonds “didn’t care.” While a minor bureaucratic error had sunk condo owner Weaver’s Superior Court petition, a similar mixup in this case went apparently ignored.
Both tree species are considered endangered. Watching as branches were torn off Big Red, Grimsby called the decision a “goddamn shame.”
Seattle horologist Nico Cox, who was visibly moved to emotion as cutting began, shared what the Sequoia sempervirens means to her and to Edmonds. “The tree provides so many services. It filters groundwater and provides shade to the neighborhood,” she said. “All the birds here are going to lose this tree.”
By late afternoon, the tree had been mostly stripped of its leafy branches; it resembled an upturned beach log, supersized to stand several stories high. Cascade Tree Care will use a crane later this week to fully remove the redwood.
The EPDD and Edmonds City Clerk did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication.
Author: Kayvon Bumpus
