Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals panel hears challenge to Edmonds tree-replacement requirement as a taking
Summary
An appellate panel heard arguments in Nathan Rimmer v. City of Edmonds over whether the city's tree-replacement rule is a regulatory limit or an unconstitutional taking under Nolan/Dolan. Counsel for the city said the code limits use and does not acquire property; counsel for Rimmer said the as-applied condition failed the required nexus and proportionality analysis and the trial court's mandamus and permit issuance leave a live federal 1983 claim.
An appellate panel heard arguments in Nathan Rimmer v. City of Edmonds over whether the city's tree-replacement requirement amounts to an unconstitutional taking when imposed as a condition on a building permit.
Jeff Terreday, counsel for the City of Edmonds, told the court the city's code regulates property use rather than acquiring property and therefore does not constitute a per se exaction. "But none of those constitute an exaction because there's there's no property being acquired," Terreday said, and he read provisions of the municipal code governing pruning, tree-retention plans and replacement obligations. He also cited Fox v. City of Pacific Grove and recent line of cases to argue the rule should not be treated as a per se…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
