Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Tumwater Tree Board for clearer web guidance after illegal topping incidents
Summary
Residents and board members described recent illegal tree topping and unauthorized cutting in neighborhoods, asked the board to produce clearer public guidance and raised jurisdictional questions about private vs. city-owned street trees.
Residents reported a recent incident in the Countryside neighborhood where a contractor performed aggressive pruning described by neighbors as tree topping. Neighbors contacted the city; city staff checked the trees and the board discussed whether the tree looked diseased and whether the work had required a permit.
At the June 9 meeting, multiple residents urged the Tree Board to make tree protection, permit and contractor licensing information easier to find on the city’s web pages. Board members and residents noted that the tree removal waiver and permit documents are currently available but require digging through the municipal code and building-permit pages.
Board members clarified jurisdictional limits during the discussion: some trees in the disputed sites were installed as part of a private development but function as street trees; municipal code still applies in some cases. Board members asked staff to check whether the site was private green space owned by the developer and whether the city’s code or the property owner’s rules applied.
Members raised enforcement and education options: posting “how-to” guidance on the tree-board web page, directing residents to hire licensed, bonded and insured arborists, and using social media to describe illegal pruning practices. Several attendees suggested the board prepare simple, accessible language on the city site and offered to share photos to illustrate damaging practices.
The board also discussed limits on allowable removals per parcel noted in the municipal code during the conversation; members asked staff to confirm current numeric limits (board members discussed “per parcel” allowances and replacement/mitigation rules) and to return with clarifying information at a future meeting.
No formal enforcement action or new ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the board’s subsequent unanimous recommendation to the communications division (reported in a separate action) aims to reduce recurrence by improving public information.
