A packed room greeted the Langley City Council this week for a special meeting on a hot topic.

Though Monday’s agenda was supposed to be split between discussions of budget priorities and tree protection, the latter topic consumed the meeting, with council members vying to get a word in edgewise during an evening that was somewhat tempestuous at times.

Two weeks ago, six Douglas firs near the intersection of Edgecliff Drive and Furman Avenue were cut down on behalf of the city, an action that was appealed by the Whidbey Environmental Action Network and Rhonda Salerno, a member of the city council. Salerno’s complete appeal will be evaluated by the city’s hearing examiner for a decision.

City staff asserted that the trees were removed because they posed a safety hazard while work was ongoing for the Langley Infrastructure Project, the LIP. But advocates argued they provided a valuable purpose in stabilizing the nearby bluff, and that their removal could have been avoided.

Worrying that more trees could be impacted by the LIP, the council decided to address tree protection protocol moving forward. Much of the discussion Monday centered around LIP-5, a subproject that brings stormwater infrastructure out to the section of Edgecliff Drive between Furman Avenue and the city limits.

Councilmember Gail Fleming initially proposed abandoning LIP-5 and repaving that part of Edgecliff Drive, or moving the utilities to the south side of the road if the project must proceed.

In response, Councilmember Craig Cyr said he expected a redesign of the project would be expensive and time-consuming. Mayor Kennedy Horstman said she was not sure of the legality of this request.

The integrity of LIP-5 has come into question by the council before. At a meeting in April 2024, Fleming and Salerno voted against approving the final LIP contract that included all 14 subprojects.

Salerno claimed she recalled asking the engineer for the project about the six trees on Edgecliff Drive and she was assured they would be protected, which was not the case.

Refining Fleming’s original proposal, Councilmember Chris Carlson suggested a new motion to request support from the mayor in researching the possibility of cancelling or redesigning LIP-5 and informing the council of the implications.

There was some back-and-forth about allowing a former arborist for the project, Jesse Brighten, to speak on the matter, and confusion ensued.

“There are cities (that) actually view their trees as critical infrastructure for stormwater, and I just hope that there could be a balance made to mitigate impacts, and also very realistic where you got to make an omelet, you got to crack some eggs,” Brighten said.

In a memo, Carlson reminded council members that the LIP is a contractual commitment that needs to be delivered, and failing to do so creates dire legal and financial risks for the city.

“It’s not reasonable or realistic that we can do a project like this and not affect trees, and so how can we put protocols in place that protects them to the extent that’s possible, but just know that there are going to be instances where it’s not possible to protect 100% of the trees,” he said.

He made several recommendations on how to improve the process, including clarifying the definition of critical root zone in city code, the tree removal ordinance and LIP tree protection protocol. In addition, he said having the project’s arborist report to the general contractor, rather than the city, was not the most effective structure to have true accountability, and suggested conducting ground-penetrating radar analysis on the trees in the project area to provide more info.

These suggestions were incorporated into his motion, which asked for the mayor to provide analysis and a response. It passed unanimously, 5-0.

Just as things seemed to be wrapping up for the evening, Salerno lamented that this has been disappointing, and she wanted to make sure that the city doesn’t lose its “soul.”

“I will not be able to participate in the government that doesn’t have a soul,” she said.

Immediately after, Carlson told Salerno that she did the mayor a significant injustice by putting her on the spot with that comment.

“We’re working together, and we like to paint things in black and white,” he said, “but we live in a gray world where we have to balance things, and we’re not always going to get exactly what we want.”