Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Edmonds council to cancel permit to remove century‑old ‘Big Red’ and adopt tree protections
Summary
Multiple Edmonds residents urged the City Council during public comment to rescind a permit to remove a roughly 102‑year‑old coast redwood called Big Red and to adopt stronger tree‑protection codes and funding for planting.
Several Edmonds residents asked the City Council on March 11 to cancel a permit they say allows removal of a large, historic coast redwood known as "Big Red" and to speed adoption of stronger city tree protections.
Dennis Weaver, a condominium resident near the boardwalk, said his land‑use appeal was dismissed on procedural service grounds and argued the permit was improperly issued. "My pro se layperson filing error should not mean that Big Red can be cut down," Weaver said, and he listed multiple perceived problems with the planning process, including reliance on an outdated arborist report and inconsistencies in the staff findings.
Other speakers echoed concerns. Gary Piper, who identified himself as a park steward for local parks, called the redwood a distinctive town landmark and said the condominium action to remove it had not had broad condominium approval. Georgina Armstrong, an Edmonds resident, referenced the 2020 Tree Canopy Assessment and the 2024 comprehensive plan and urged the council to pass tree codes and dedicate funding for plantings. Pam Tower, chair of the mayor's Climate Protection Committee, said Edmonds lacks a landmark/heritage tree code and urged action now rather than waiting for other city work.
Speakers asked the council to rescind the permit or otherwise halt removal and to prioritize a tree code that would protect significant trees and the city's canopy and carbon‑sequestration goals. Several speakers tied their request to policy documents on the city's website and to an arborist report and staff materials they said were inconsistent with on‑the‑ground conditions.
Council members did not take formal action during the public comment period; staff later noted the city is updating tree‑related policy work but that tree‑protection legislation and budgeting remain in process. The council did not vote on the permit during the March 11 meeting, and speakers were told the public hearing portion of the agenda concerned a separate surplus‑vehicle sale.
