Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, tree board raise alarm over proposed Tumwater Hill townhomes, citing loss of mature trees
Summary
Neighbors and tree‑board members said a public notice for a 2–3 acre townhouse project on Tumwater Hill started a 14‑day comment period before some residents received mail notice; they said mature, heritage trees appear excluded from schematics and urged staff to pause or ensure fuller outreach.
Tumwater — Members of the Tumwater Tree Board and residents raised concerns at the May 11 meeting about a proposed 2–3 acre development at the top of Tumwater Hill that the board said could remove mature trees and was noticed in a way that confused neighbors.
Freddy Koval, a board member who said he works for the state Department of Natural Resources, told the board that neighbors found a public‑action sign for the site but many did not receive mailed notices until days later. "The sign went up with the land action notice, but we didn't get anything in the mail for a few days later," Koval said, adding that residents feel the timing is “hasty” given pending municipal code revisions designed to protect the urban forest.
Why it matters: Board members said the parcel includes very old trees and sits in a neighborhood that community members have suggested could serve as parkland. If developers proceed under current schematics, board members said the trees shown on site plans appear unlikely to survive construction.
What the meeting revealed: Participants said the preliminary proposal appears to be for 11 townhome structures along Fifth Avenue beneath the cell towers. Koval said the parcel’s current schematics show "really low viability" for many of the mature trees. City staff and the mayor directed residents to contact planner Alex Baroo for procedural details and noted that the project will proceed through the city’s hearings examiner and development review committee where the public may participate.
Tumwater jurisdiction and next steps: Board staff clarified that parts of the area under discussion lie within the county urban growth (UG) boundary for which the county, not the city, is the lead permit authority; staff said the city has provided comments but limited legal authority when a project sits in county jurisdiction. Mayor Dhoff said Tumwater holds first right of refusal on a nearby brownfield property and that environmental reviews on some redevelopment sites are still in phase two, a stage she said can provide access to cleanup funding.
Board response and follow‑up: Members asked staff to gather neighborhood contact information and to follow up with the planner by email so the board and neighbors can be formally notified when hearings are scheduled. The board also noted the timing of upcoming municipal tree‑protection code revisions and urged extra outreach so community input can inform decisions.
The next procedural step is for the project file to be clarified with planning staff; the board and residents were advised to watch for hearing and development‑review notices and to provide comments at the formal hearings.
