Submitted by Maria Sullivan and Karin Williamson.
Should four large, mature trees in Sunnyside Beach Park in Steilacoom be removed to expand and create views for homeowners who live above the park?
This question was a topic of extensive, and at times, vociferous discussion at the Steilacoom Town Council meeting on Tuesday, May 21. A larger than usual audience was present to express their vigorous opposition.
In December 2022, a number of residents with homes above Sunnyside Beach Park requested removal of 20 mature trees from the park to restore and improve their views of Puget Sound. That request did not go forward.
In Spring 2024, a homeowner, who purchased his home in mid-2022, above Sunnyside Beach Park, with an expansive Puget Sound view, has now returned, with a request for removal of four towering evergreens along the eastern boundary of the park for the purpose of increasing his existing expansive view.
White ribbons around the trees identify the four large trees being considered for removal.
At the core of contention is a section of the Steilacoom Municipal Code (SMC) that provides an administrative process for requesting alteration (including removal) of trees or vegetation on town-owned property for the purpose of “preserving, restoring or improving views.” The current code arguably allows for removal of mature, healthy trees including in town parks. There is currently no requirement for an arborist assessment of tree health or for replanting.
The Town of Steilacoom code designates the Director of Public Works as the decision maker who can either approve or deny the request.
Due to the current pending application for the removal of the four towering evergreens, Sunnyside Beach Park has become a focal point of discussions about preservation of the town’s trees. There is a serious concern that the current code provision which allows residents to request tree removal for view purposes, conflicts with the Town’s Shoreline Master Program. The Town’s Shoreline Master Program was adopted from RCW 90.58, the State Shoreline Management Act, which regulates the shoreline.
The State Shoreline Management Act and the Town’s Shoreline Master Program bestows strong environmental protection for shoreline properties 200 feet landward of the ordinary high-water mark. Sunnyside Beach Park is within this zone.
Among the purposes of the Shoreline Master Program is to promote “the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community,” and to “achieve no net loss to the ecological functions of the Town’s shorelines.” The state’s shorelines are to be protected not only for the fish, wildlife, and the aesthetic benefits they provide, but also for the benefits to the economy, public health, safety, and community welfare.
Sunnyside Beach Park, created in 1987, is Steilacoom’s most popular park, providing public shoreline access for thousands of visitors. It is the only Steilacoom shoreline park that is ADA accessible. The trees in the park are among the few mature trees along the South Puget Sound shoreline that are waterward of the railroad tracks.
The trees provide welcome shade in the summer to visitors who bring children to enjoy the playground, the scenic surroundings, the birds the trees attract, and the water access. It is the site of the Salmon Bake and many family gatherings.
Steilacoom resident Alex Chaney who has led tree planting projects in the Town of Steilacoom, testified that “trees in town provide valuable services we all enjoy, including habitat for birds, reduced water runoff in the storm sewer, cleaner air, carbon sequestration, groundwater infiltration, and oxygen to breathe. These benefits reach across property lines to benefit us all. Why does the town have a procedure to give a luxury good, the view, to a handful of residents at the expense of the remainder of the town?”
James Burke, a member of the Steilacoom Parks and Environment Advisory Committee, explained how the interlocking roots of trees stabilize each other. He warned that the removal of these large trees would jeopardize the survival of nearby trees. In our view, the ability of trees to absorb water and stabilize the soil is particularly relevant for the town’s beachside park, in which a collapsed seawall was recently replaced at great expense.
Councilmember Nancy Henderson emphasized that the Town gains nothing from approving the removal of trees from the park. While removal would enhance the view and conceivably the property value of private property owners, it would devalue its own public property in the process. She expressed concern that it would establish a Town policy of favoring private interest and personal gain over the public good.
Town resident Marilyn Reed warned, “If you allow one resident to dictate how the town property is managed for their personal gain you are just opening the door for others to follow.” Approval of similar requests would result in incremental degradation of the park’s natural environment and the public’s enjoyment. Resident Bob Rudolph asked, “What’s next, the Tunnel of Trees?”
Commenting on the need for changes to the current Steilacoom Municipal Code, Mr. Chaney stated: “You certainly shouldn’t steal trees from the citizens’ public land in order to give out favors to a select few; much less burden the town staff with making such determinations.”
Councilmembers Henderson and Liz Grasher submitted proposed changes to the current Steilacoom Urban Forestry Management ordinance, which is at the center of the tree removal controversy. Henderson explained that the current code, now 20 years old, has undergone only minor updating. In those 20 years, the understanding of the multiple benefits that trees provide has increased. However, the number of trees in Steilacoom continues to decrease with an ordinance, that in the view of many residents, is not adequately protective of trees on town-owned property.
The topic of changes to the Steilacoom Urban Forestry Management ordinance will be discussed at the next Steilacoom Town Council meeting on June 4 at 6 pm at the Steilacoom Town Hall.
I appreciate this article as I was at that council meeting. I am afraid that the 4 trees will be removed before anything is decided. That homeowner bought his house above Sunnyside beach in 2022 knowing that those trees were there already. How arrogant of that homeowner who has been working closely with Mark B from the town and these were in his words
Agreed. I wish I had known about this meeting. Is there anything else we can do to prevent this?
I am in total agreement with Marilyn Reid. Why should the city of Steilacoom destroy these trees that are providing shade to the people who use & visit Sunny Side Park. The owner who wants to have them cut down is not taking into consideration how other owners of the town feel..
Hopefully our city council members & city mayor will not let the removal happen!
NO. Those trees are need for not only shade, but to help stop the land erosion. He knew when he bought the house that the trees were there and must consider himself way to important. I don’t care about his veiw, but I do care about those trees.
Removing trees on public land just to satisfy the visual needs of a few is inherently wrong. City government is sworn to protect all city assets, which include trees and other natural resources, for the greater good of the entire community. Removing the trees is wrong.
Removing, or adapting?
I don’t believe that total removal would be good for the overall stability of the land here. Keep in mind how wet our climate really is, and you will need those root balls to be there.
So if you arrogantly think you need to have your “view” improved, just cut them, but maintain the stumps for ground stability. You are flirting with disaster and nature already.
You remove those trees completely and one day you will be washing away with the fierce tide.
That’s the facts.
How about trimming or topping the trees? That would reduce tree area and help prevent future damage from windstorms. At the same time, trimming would make our park safer, reduce cleaning fall leaves, and have the benefit of improving views for many homes. That sounds like a win for everyone!
Good thinking, Mr. Neufeld.
Joseph Boyle
Mr. Neufeld, The trees in question are EVERGREEN trees, they DO NOT LOSE ANY LEAVES!
Topping evergreen trees might seem like a quick fix to control their height or reduce their size, but it’s a practice that’s generally discouraged and can be quite harmful to the health and aesthetics of the tree. Here’s why:
Stress and Shock: Evergreen trees, like all plants, have a natural form and growth pattern. Topping disrupts this pattern and can cause significant stress to the tree. When you remove a large portion of the tree’s canopy, you’re essentially removing its food factory, as leaves are the primary sites for photosynthesis. This shock can weaken the tree and make it more susceptible to diseases, pests, and environmental stresses.
Decay and Disease: Topping creates large wounds on the tree, leaving it vulnerable to decay and disease. Without proper pruning techniques, the cuts made during topping often leave behind stubs that don’t heal properly. These wounds become entry points for pathogens, leading to infections that can spread throughout the tree, potentially causing its decline or death.
Regrowth Issues: After topping, the tree may produce rapid, weak, and poorly attached shoots in an attempt to compensate for the lost foliage. These new shoots are often structurally unsound and prone to breaking, posing safety hazards. Additionally, the dense regrowth can create a tangled mess of branches that are difficult to manage and detract from the tree’s natural beauty.
Aesthetic and Long-Term Effects: Topping can result in disfigured and unattractive trees. Instead of maintaining the tree’s natural shape, topping creates a stubby, unnatural appearance that detracts from the landscape. Moreover, topping is not a sustainable solution in the long run. The regrowth that occurs after topping often requires frequent maintenance, leading to a cycle of continued topping and further stress on the tree.
This Steilacoom tree uproar is amazing. Let’s “branch” out and get to the “root” of the issue.
First, I love trees. I hate to cut trees. It is extremely difficult for me to decide to cut a tree, but I have three rules to live by.
Rule #1: If I have any control or influence over trees I run the trees. The trees do not run me.
Rule #2: While I love trees, views are more important than trees. Views first. Trees second. It can be a view of the water, mountains, city, or…
Rule #3: If I owned property with trees that blocked my neighbor’s view, I would make the personal sacrifice to trim or remove those trees to allow my neighbor to enjoy their view. That is the intelligent, other-directed and right thing to do.
If narrow-minded tree huggers successfully block the tree removal, the Town of Steilacoom should write a check to each homeowner every year for the destruction of their previous or potential property value as the trees grow higher and thicker.
I say narrow-minded because tree-huggers simply do not get it.
Disclosure. I do not own view property.
Tree huggers, sorry if my taking the other side angers you. I am compelled to stand up for others for what is right. I am, with my U.S. Constitutional right of free speech simply sharing my “view”.
Joseph Boyle – Former Pierce County Resident – 62 years
“…narrow-minded tree huggers… I say narrow-minded because tree-huggers simply do not get it.” Dispicable comments!!!
For someone who doesn’t have any standing in this issue, i.e. lives on the East coast, why do you choose to denigrate persons who live here and express their legitimate concerns regarding this issue?
Incredibly ignorant comments. Boyles statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific consensus. My guess is he thinks climate change is a “hoax” a conspiracy by the left wing tree hugging liberals. Boyles comments stem from a lack of awareness, misinformation, or a refusal to acknowledge the urgency of environmental issues sadly he votes.
You are missing the point. We are talking about removing trees from public land, not private land. Public land, by definition is for enjoyment of the many. Private land is for the enjoyment of the owner. Had those trees were on the landowners property it would be in his right (provided that it did not violate any codes) to remove them. This is not the case here. This is why the town, and the rest of the residents (not just those that share your views) have a say. That is the American way.
Steilacoom Resident
Ok first off who are you to decide what trees should live or die they were here before humans even came into existence so I say they have way more rights then we do. Second and I hope you remember this trees are what help make it so we can breath they help protect our soil along with many other important facts without them the human race would perish including YOU and as for cutting down a tee for my neighbor if it’s for safety or for the better of the environment that is one thing but if my neighbor asked me to cut down a tree for a view I would tell them hell no if you want a view that badly move somewhere else where you can get one without hurting the environment. And in the end it’s just pure selfish to ask to cut down trees that other people and animals benefit from just for a view.
How about removing the offending trees and then installing sunshade-producing awnings or wood structures to provide shade for those who desire shade?
Please look for a solution that serves both tree huggers and view lovers, thereby creating a win-win.
Joseph Boyle
because ‘awnings’ do not purify the air, hold the ground together, absorb sound….. You need to educate yourself!
WHY! A 2 year citizen who bought his house as is. Is going to destroy our park for his convence!
I don’t think the trees should be removed. As already mentioned, the removal of the four trees only serves the needs of a select few and not the larger community of Steilacoom.
Sacrificing a public amenity for the benefit of a very small number of private residents is fundamentally wrong, and the city must side with the public.
As a biologist and educator I am astonished at this dilemma.
Trees are communities where complex biological webs are formed for hundreds of species. They provide shade, cooling, oxygen, shore stabilization, integration with other close trees and sound buffering. Why are you considering removing these trees to increase a property owners view? These trees took years to reach this climax step in their lives. They are not a danger to any one.
I think you need to look at your municipal code and see why this is even being considered. I think we have come to the point that the good of the commons outweighs a win for a single recipient.
Trees are not commodores that come and go. The trees you remove cannot be replaced by a 6’ x 1” diameter sapling. I cannot stop private property owners from removing trees but trees on municipal property belong to all of us. Someone has to speak for the trees.
Is the individual who brought this up going to pay for the trees’ removal? Would public funds be used for any other improvement of their property? I don’t think so. Would a property owner other than the city be required to remove existing trees from their property at their expense so this individual could enjoy their view? I don’t think so. They bought the property knowing full well that there were trees within their view. Public funds should not be spent, especially with the value these trees provide, to remove them. I live in Lakewood with a nearly unobstructed view of Lake Steilacoom. One blue spruce barely blocks a small portion of the view. It’s easy enough for me to move (instead of “re-move) around the tree to see it all.
Ah, progress! I drive up towards Enumclaw, and as I pass by, I now see shopping centers, hundreds of trees have been sacrificed for these new convenient places.
And now here in the first town in the state is being asked to bend to the will of some few who bought homes with trees before them. Surely they knew the trees would grow.
Anyone who knows me, knows I am sad anytime a piece of our wonderful nature here is destroyed.
I was very sad when a hundred trees were sacrificed along my street. I was told it was to put in phone lines for Mc.Neil. They said they would replace them. 1. A number of them were over 100. years old. 2. They did not replace them. Can one replace a hundred years of life?
Many in my neighborhood have removed trees but I have not. Trees are more stable in the wind when they are in groups, not single.
When I look out my windows, I see no homes, yet they are there. It’s as if I live in a treehouse. I enjoy the coolness they provide in the summer as well.
Perhaps their neighbors would also miss the trees.
If we keep cutting them down, will that effect the land? Will it cause more erosion at the beach possible?
Sorry, I vote for the trees.
Trees are the view.
Steilacoom’s magnificent trees provide critical services to both humans and nature. Yet, these arboreal guardians face a myriad of threats, ranging from ignorance, elitist entitlement, and urbanization. Preserving trees in coastal areas emerges not only as an environmental imperative but as a crucial step towards securing the resilience of Steilacoom.
These trees serve as front-line defenders against erosion, shielding the land from the erosive forces of wind and waves. Sunny Side Heights and Madrona Park sit on a glacial sandbar that will “liquefy” with enough seismic activity. Trees intricate root systems stabilize the soil. Additionally, these coastal trees provide crucial habitats for numerous species of wildlife, including birds, insects, and mammals. These ecosystems also act as carbon sinks, sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide and mitigating the effects of climate change.
Despite their invaluable contributions, our trees face a multitude of threats. Steilaccom’s development often encroaches upon these fragile ecosystems, leading to habitat fragmentation and loss.
Preserving trees in Steilacoom is not merely an ecological endeavor but a fundamental necessity for ensuring the well-being of both nature and humanity. By safeguarding these vital ecosystems, we can mitigate the impacts of climate change, enhance biodiversity, and protect our community from the ravages of natural disasters.
By recognizing the intrinsic value of these ecosystems and taking concerted action to protect them, we can ensure their continued vitality for generations to come. The citizens of Steilacoom are mere custodians and we should work tirelessly to sustain the precious coastal sanctuaries, wetlands and our trees to enrich our lives and nurture the web of life.
Plant more trees.
Trees block multiple views in Steilacoom. If allowed, we would be chopping down trees , not just these 4 in question. Ridiculous request from a homeowner that recently purchased the home.
What is written, in or not, in the town by laws in regardsto this issue?
Just because you have money doesn’t mean your special. Save the trees 🌳
Personally, looking at those trees, I think they need thinning out removing some of the branches giving the homes a better view but with just a few branches in the way. They don’t need topping. If I lived behind those trees, I could live with that. That way, everyone would be somewhat happy. It’s a compromise.
Topping trees is a terrible idea, leads to stress and more sprouts growing from the top of the trees as they try to survive, vista pruning is the only possible solution. Both Lakewood and Tacoma have recently changed their municipal tree removal and pruning codes as the tree canopy has continued to decline in the south sound due to tree removals allowed without a permit and a certified arborist’s report with a valid reason for removal, Not someone who things their view is more important than the health and well being that trees for provide for us (like oxygen). Please do not let these beautiful trees be removed
Let’s all hope those “tree huggers” down in Lacey don’t hear about this! It got seriously nasty there! Maybe our Town Managers need to talk to them about their experiences with public tree removal.
While increasing the enjoyment of the property of a few is it not decreasing the enjoyment of the park for a multitude? We already have an ongoing problem at Sunnyside with erosion, removal of trees and the root system will only increase this problem. Why do we not ask the homeowner who is requesting the removal of the trees to compensate every Steilacoom resident who uses the park to compensate for their loss of enjoyment in the park? The fact that Steilacoom would even entertain this person’s request totally floors me. The Town has already decimated so much of Steilacoom with the removal of trees and wildlife habitat that now we are creating an issue with wild animals who have nowhere else to go. It won’t be long before long time residents of the town of Steilacoom will have nowhere to go. I really think that we need a change in some of the leadership, specifically in that we need a leadership that can speak for the majority and not just the wealthy minority.
I agree with Greg Alderette and all of his comments. It seems many others agree with him as well. Keep the trees, do not take them down for a few property owners who knew the trees were there when they bought their houses. Sorry Joe, can’t agree with you on this issue. Please let the trees stay and support Nancy Henderson and Liz Grasher in re-writing the very outdated policies for the future.
Marianne Bull
Marianne,
I am pleased that while we may not agree on an issue, we can share our honest & frank opinions in a civil & friendly manner and still maintain our friendship. That makes our world a better place.
May what ever is right & fair be the judgement of the day.
Joseph Boyle
Is this home owners house blocking any views from other Steilacoom residents? I mean, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Also, there is a lot of desert areas in the western US where this home owner wouldn’t have to worry about trees blocking views.
The property owner making the tree removal request is a real estate agent. The timing of this request is suspicious given the capital gains tax break after two years of ownership. I would suspect this property will be back on the market soon.