Edmonds Hearing Examiner Special Meeting - Appeal of Tree Removal Violation

Date: December 16, 2025
Time: 2:00 PM
Location: Brackett Room, City Hall – 3rd Floor, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA (hybrid meeting)
Case: Appeal by Richard Redelfs of a Notice of Violation for Unpermitted Tree Removal (File COD2025-0070)
Presiding: Hearing Examiner

Discussion Items

• City’s Presentation: The city, represented by Development Director Mike Clugston and staff member Ted Corey, presented its case. The city became aware of a tree cutting at 7115 15th St SW in June 2025. The tree was protected under Interim Ordinance 4389, which prohibits removal of landmark trees (≥30 inches diameter) without a permit. The city’s code enforcement officer investigated, issued an order to correct, and later contracted with arborist Holly Ioso (Tree Solutions Inc.) who determined the tree was not a nuisance or hazard. The city issued a Notice of Violation with a total penalty of $102,245, comprising $94,200 appraised value of the tree, $1,500 investigation/administration, $3,000 appraisal cost, and $3,545 replanting plan implementation. The city argued the fine was calculated under ECDC 23.10.100 and that no flexibility existed to reduce it.

• Appellant’s Case: Appellant Richard Redelfs, represented by counsel (Mr. Tinksted), testified. He purchased the property in March 2025, intending to renovate and move in with his family. He described the tree as a large Douglas fir (~60 ft tall, 30–33 inches diameter per his estimate) that was partly dead, leaning toward the house, with a large root already cut (due to foundation concerns). He hired a tree service (MVP Tree) in March 2025; the contractor assured him no city permit was needed (the city’s interim ordinance took effect April 29, 2025). The tree was removed in early June 2025. Redelfs later learned of the ordinance. He argued: (1) the fine exceeds the statutory maximum of $5,000 for a city ordinance violation under RCW 35.22.280 (first class city) or similar optional municipal code statute; (2) the city’s arborist overestimated the tree’s diameter (47.7 inches) by not following code requirements to compare with similar trees in similar conditions; his own measurements of remaining Douglas firs on the property suggested a diameter at breast height of 30–32 inches, possibly under the 30-inch threshold; (3) the city double-counted the replanting cost ($3,545) as both an additional cost and part of the appraised value; (4) the city did not provide receipts for staff time or appraisal costs; (5) the city’s website’s tree removal table (for single-family properties not subdividable) states “No permit required” with no reference to the interim ordinance, so he had no notice.

• Cross-Examination by City: The city questioned Redelfs about discrepancies in tree diameter estimates (city arborist 47.7 inches, appellant’s arborist 33 inches, both over 30 inches). Redelfs acknowledged his own measurements suggested the tree could be under 30 inches, but the city’s arborist’s report was not based on the code’s required comparison method.

• Hearing Examiner’s Observations: The hearing examiner noted that the fine factors under ECDC 23.10.100 C2 appear flexible (e.g., economic benefit), but culpability is not explicitly listed. He suggested the appellant might have a strong equitable argument given safety motivations. He expressed skepticism about the $5,000 statutory limit argument, noting many cities impose far higher fines for tree removal, but left the issue open for briefing.

Key Outcomes

• No Final Decision Rendered: The hearing was not concluded. The hearing examiner set a briefing schedule for a summary judgment motion on the statutory fine limit issue:

  • Appellant’s motion due: January 13, 2026
  • City’s response due: January 27, 2026
  • Appellant’s reply due: January 30, 2026
  • The hearing examiner will issue a decision after receiving the reply.

• Cross-Examination of City Arborist: The hearing examiner offered to schedule a Zoom session for cross-examination of the city’s arborist (Holly Ioso) if the summary judgment motion does not resolve the case. The appellant may decide later.

• Potential Additional Briefing: The hearing examiner invited the parties to also address the issue of his authority to modify the fine based on equitable considerations or the discretionary factors in the tree code, noting that the city’s calculation appeared to omit the economic benefit factor.

• Admitted Exhibits: The city’s agenda packet (Exhibits A–J, staff report), the appellant’s notice of appeal, a document titled “Large Trees Remaining on the Property Measurements Taken December 16, 2025,” and a printout of the city’s tree removal webpage were admitted into evidence.