Tree board reviews draft Tumwater street-tree list; debate over removals, criteria and administrative process

City staff and tree-board members spent the bulk of the meeting reviewing a draft street-tree and right-of-way list provided by a consultant and edited by staff, operations crews and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Alyssa (city staff) reminded the board that the list came from a consultant and was later cross-referenced with a University of Washington vulnerability study. "The street tree list was provided by the consultant," she said. "...I have red and green x's and check marks for the trees that would do okay, which is how I cross them off there, based on Amita's research."

Why it matters: the list will be used administratively to specify species for planting in public rights-of-way and for development projects. Board members questioned the removal of many trees (notably maples) and asked for documentation of who reviewed and why species were deleted.

Key discussion points: board members and staff debated criteria including climate vulnerability (drought and heat tolerance), root-conflict experience from operations staff, planter-strip width and availability of specific cultivars at local nurseries. Members noted the consultant's list drew from street-tree lists across Puget Sound but later edits were informed by a local street-tree inventory and field staff experience. Alyssa said staff had paused code amendments to focus on wildland-urban interface advocacy and that revising the list administratively may take time depending on staff capacity. "We pivoted for that November," she said.

Areas of disagreement and operational constraints: field staff recommended removing many maples because the inventory already showed overabundance and because of sidewalk lifting and root issues, while DNR review sometimes disagreed. Board members suggested keeping a record of deleted species as a footnote so future reviewers understand the decisions. There was also discussion that specifying narrow cultivars risks procurement problems because cultivars may not be commercially available; staff and board suggested listing genus/species and desired characteristics rather than fixed cultivars.

Process and next steps: staff proposed producing a cleaner Word version of the list to enable board edits and to add a dated footnote listing who reviewed recommendations. Alyssa said changing the list can be done administratively and does not require code amendments, but staff capacity and other priorities may slow the timeline. The board scheduled continued discussion next month.

Ending: Board members asked staff to produce a revised, annotated draft with a deleted-species appendix and availability notes for local nurseries before the next meeting.