Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tumwater staff restart urban-forestry code update, target adoption by Nov. 2026
Summary
City staff presented a revived urban-forestry code update funded by a Department of Natural Resources grant, summarized six public-engagement priorities (species, stormwater, permitting, retention, land-use balance, funding) and announced an RFP and joint public review timetable toward a November 2026 adoption.
Alyssa Jones Wood, sustainability manager for the City of Tumwater, told the Planning Commission on Jan. 13 that the city is resuming a long-planned update to its urban-forestry regulations, a project paused after state code changes and now supported by a Department of Natural Resources community-forest grant.
The presentation summarized six priorities from public engagement: choosing appropriate species and maintenance regimes; managing peripheral impacts such as stormwater and utility conflicts; simplifying permitting while protecting trees; strengthening retention and replacement requirements; balancing trees with housing and right-of-way needs (including clearance for garbage and emergency vehicles); and clarifying how the city’s tree fund is allocated and spent. "We collapsed what we heard into six categories," Jones Wood said, describing public input on species selection, maintenance responsibility and fund transparency.
Why it matters: The update aims to fit local tree management into the city’s broader urban-forest management plan adopted in 2021 and to align code language with recent state building-code and wildfire-interface developments. Jones Wood said staff want the code to work on the ground and plan to test three to five scenarios for typical applications. She said staff published an RFP (noted as published "on the seventh") and expect to close proposals around the 20th, with internal review and then a public-draft review process that includes joint sessions with the Tree Board and a field tour so commissioners and the public can inspect representative sites.
Details and context: Jones Wood traced the work back to 2018 and said the 2021 urban-forest management plan identified code updates as a priority. Staff said the project paused when state-level action affected implementation; the State Building Code Council review repealed certain state code language, and staff must crosswalk the local draft to any new state guidance before adoption. The city’s urban forester, Brian Coughlin, will provide technical input and has already adjusted the approved street-tree list administratively while staff finalize the code package.
Commissioners raised typical operational questions: how the tree fund will be spent; what action the city can take on legacy trees that damage sidewalks and streets; whether the code will restrict species that overgrow infrastructure; and how to balance tree retention with housing density and small-scale solar. Jones Wood said the Tree Board will act as a technical adviser in two planned joint meetings; the Planning Commission will retain the formal hearing and decision-making role at adoption. A staff speaker also reminded commissioners of one vacancy on the commission and quorum constraints for future meetings.
Next steps: Staff plan a work group through March, internal review in April, public review beginning in May and joint Planning Commission/Tree Board briefings and a field tour before hearings. The stated goal for formal adoption of the urban-forestry code is November 2026. The presentation noted the project is grant funded (Department of Natural Resources community urban-forest grant) and that consultant support will be selected via the published RFP.
The Planning Commission did not take any formal action on the code during the Jan. 13 meeting; staff asked the commission to use the coming months as a sounding board and to attend joint sessions and the site tour when scheduled.
