Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tacoma staff outline options to expand tree credits, retention and parking-lot canopy requirements
Summary
City planners briefed the IPS committee on a tree and landscape code update that would extend tree-credit and retention standards citywide, consider non-development canopy-loss fees, raise parking-lot canopy expectations and target low-canopy areas; staff said Tacoma's 2024 canopy is 21% and the city goal is 30% by 2050.
City planning staff on March 25 presented initial code options to the Infrastructure Planning and Sustainability Committee for updating Tacoma’s tree and landscape rules, seeking early input on scope and next steps.
Adam Nolan, senior planner with Planning and Development Services, said the update’s objectives include extending the tree credit system adopted in Home in Tacoma to all zoning districts, expanding tree-retention standards (including options to apply them beyond development scenarios), strengthening parking-lot canopy requirements and deploying low-canopy management strategies directed at neighborhoods with the lowest tree cover.
Nolan cited the city’s most recent canopy inventory (2024) and said, "the city's overall tree canopy is 21%." He noted the comprehensive plan target for neighborhoods is 30% canopy by 2050 and described a four-phase project schedule that will produce initial code options, go to the planning commission in April for review, return to IPS in June and target a planning commission public hearing later in the year and forwarding to council in early 2027.
Mike Carey, urban forestry with the City of Tacoma, emphasized constraints on regulatory authority for geography-based interventions and said incentive programs (partnerships with the Tree Foundation and other programs) are currently the primary tools to address low-canopy neighborhoods: "we are restricted in terms of what we can regulate in our development code."
Committee members probed several choices staff flagged for analysis: whether to focus on gaps in zoning where canopy requirements do not yet exist versus revisiting recently adopted standards; whether to extend retention rules to non-development situations; whether to move from prescriptive to performance-based standards (or a hybrid) for parking-lot landscaping; and whether to remove a current exemption that excludes parking lots with 16 stalls or fewer from some landscaping requirements.
Vice Chair Sidalge urged flexibility for developers and the possibility of non-tree environmental mitigation (solar canopies, rain gardens) as alternatives to strict tree-prescription approaches. Council member Hines cautioned the group to consider community trade-offs and private-property concerns, observing in discussion that residents often support trees on neighbors’ properties but resist constraints on their own: "My tree, on the other hand, is my tree, and therefore, I should be able to do what I like with my tree." Staff said they will provide peer jurisdiction comparisons and draft code options to the planning commission and IPS as work proceeds.
Why it matters: the code choices under study could change how developers design projects, how private-property tree removals are accounted for, and how the city targets investments to increase canopy in neighborhoods with the lowest tree cover.
Next steps: staff will prepare two initial code options for each objective, brief the planning commission on April 15, return to IPS with draft code in June, and aim for a planning commission public hearing in September and council consideration in early 2027.
