Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Heritage Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents warn Tumwater-area subdivision threatens heritage trees; commission weighs mitigation and joint-planning limits
Summary
Neighbors told the commission a Tumwater urban-growth subdivision would remove legacy trees; staff said the project is at pre-submission stage, named developer/consultant references and discussed mitigation-banking, title notices and joint‑planning complexities.
Residents at the meeting warned that a proposed subdivision in the Tumwater urban growth area could remove dozens of legacy and heritage trees, and urged the county to use mitigation tools or keep certain protections when joint plans adopt city codes.
"They're destroying every single heritage tree in there," a resident said, citing online reports and local concern about the loss of large trees in a planned subdivision.
Staff said the project remains at the pre-submission stage and described developer references in public comments: cited firms included AMH Development and Tanino Land Company LLC; an engineering consultant name mentioned was JSA Civil. Planning staff said the proposal would ultimately require civil construction approvals, and that developers had in public materials described a project of roughly 104–105 homes.
Commissioners and staff discussed options for protecting legacy trees and discouraging perverse incentives to cut trees before protections apply. Ideas covered at the meeting included mitigation banking, mandatory title-notice disclosures when protected features exist, creating tree‑mitigation banks that compensate for removed trees through protection or restoration elsewhere, and research into whether a CAO-driven development moratorium is allowed or feasible in specific circumstances.
Staff cautioned that some Tumwater UG issues are governed by joint-planning agreements—meaning the county may adopt city CAO provisions by reference in the UG—and that the timing of city code updates affects county application in the UG. Commissioners said the board has signaled interest in holding back certain urban-growth area (UG) code adoptions to retain some county tree protections.
Next steps: staff said they will research mitigation-banking models, title-notice feasibility and legal limits for moratoria, and return to the commission with feasibility findings and options.
