Edmonds no longer responsible for damages in tree mandate case

Published 10:58 am Friday, April 3, 2026

EVERETT — The city of Edmonds does not have to pay damages to a resident for a past tree mandate after an appellate panel dismissed the case as moot earlier this month.

The March 16 decision came more than two years after Edmonds resident Nathan Rimmer first filed a lawsuit against the city.

In 2022, Rimmer submitted a building permit for a single-family home on a vacant lot on Cedar Street. A year before, the city had adopted an ordinance prohibiting landowners from removing large trees without city approval.

In the footprint of Rimmer’s building plans stood a dogwood tree. If Rimmer were to remove the tree, he would have to dedicate a portion of land to plant two more trees in its place, according to the new regulations. The city would not issue a decision on the permit until he submitted a plan for the tree replacement.

In July 2023, just before his permit application was set to expire, Rimmer filed a lawsuit, alleging the tree replacement requirements were unconstitutional.

In January 2024, a Snohomish County Superior Court judge ruled that the requirements were unconstitutional and ordered the city to approve Rimmer’s permit. In December 2024, the judge found the city responsible for financial damages accrued during the case. The city appealed the order that it must approve Rimmer’s permit. The question of whether the city would have to pay damages was set to be decided after the appeal, according to the December 2024 court order.

In April 2024, the city awarded the permit to Rimmer. The next month, he sold the property and a new owner constructed a home without having to replace the tree.

In October 2025, the city changed its tree code to remove the title notice requirement and update its procedures for tree removal.

Because the city issued a permit and updated its tree code, the appellate panel decided the court could no longer provide effective relief to Rimmer or the city.

“We are committed to always examining and improving our processes, while ensuring clarity and fairness in our city actions,” Mayor Mike Rosen said in a statement Tuesday. “We want to ensure Edmonds remains a place where residents can build their dreams while also protecting our shared environment.”

In a statement Tuesday, Edmonds City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he is satisfied with the result of the case.

“Ultimately the Court did rule in favor of the City, and we were able to avoid liability for significant damages as a result,” he said. “After extensive review and research, I firmly believe the City’s tree replacement requirement is a legally sound regulation.”

On Tuesday, Rimmer’s attorney, Brian Hodges, said he planned to filed a motion this week asking the court for clarification on the ruling. Hodges is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit law firm. Because the city appealed the court order that it must approve Rimmer’s permit instead of the ruling that it was liable for damages, Hodges said the city should still have to pay damages. If the court denies Hodges motion, he plans to escalate the case to the Washington Supreme Court, he said.

“This case is far from over,” Hodges said. “It’s got a lot of life.”

Jenna Peterson: 425-339-3486; jenna.peterson@heraldnet.com; X: @jennarpetersonn.