Lacey City Council wrestles with changes to tree removal rules
.jpg "Lacey City Council on Thursday appeared split over a proposed change to city tree removal rules that would take lot size into consideration.")
A week ago Lacey City Council was set to vote on proposed changes to the city’s tree regulations when written comments submitted to the meeting caused Mayor Andy Ryder to postpone that step.
Instead, the council spent the majority of its work session on Thursday discussing the proposed changes again. Although the council appears to be in agreement on creating a new path for homeowner’s associations to remove nuisance trees, council members are split on a formula that would include lot size when determining how many trees a property owner can remove.
Currently a homeowner with a single-family lot is allowed to remove up to five trees every three years. That works well on a smaller lot, but it doesn’t apply very well to a larger lot with more trees.
Planning Commission Manager Ryan Andrews said it has raised a question about fairness.
Andrews said there are lots along the city’s lakes that have acres of trees and yet they are subject to the same five-tree removal permit.
To level the playing field, the city has proposed the following: Instead of a five trees every three years, the new standard would be a minimum ratio of trees to lot size, or four trees, either existing or replanted, per 5,000 square feet.
Andrews provided a visual example, showing a 2.5-acre lot near Long Lake, a portion of which is within city limits, that has more than 220 trees. Based on the acreage, if the proposed changes were adopted, the lot would have to maintain at least 87 trees. In theory, the property owner could cut down all the trees and replant 87, but a request like that would trigger a higher level of administrative review, he said.
“We have safeguards, requirements and permits and reviews that apply here that would prohibit the clear-cutting of the lot, but it would allow tree removal,” Andrews said.
Not all council members were comfortable with removing the 5/3 rule, citing the important role trees play in combating climate change.
“I might be able to live with the HOA exemption, but I have real concerns about the five and three, because we just can’t talk about trees as individual resources, they are doing something for our community,” Councilwoman Robin Vazquez said.
Councilwoman Carolyn Cox echoed those thoughts, pointing out there is a big difference between the amount of carbon a mature tree can sequester compared to a sapling.
The Olympian requested the written comments submitted to last week’s council meeting. Here’s what residents had to say.
▪ Dan Tufford: “The results of surveys of Lacey residents and public comment to this section of the Lacey Municipal Code overwhelmingly support tree protection, not making changes that could accelerate tree removal. A city that makes it easier to remove mature healthy trees is not the kind of city most Lacey residents want.”
▪ John and Margaret Green: “According to citizen surveys, an overwhelming majority of Lacey residents favor more protections for trees in the city. This comes at a time when council and city staff are considering allowing less protection for trees in HOAs. There seems to be a disconnect here. Reducing protection is a very bad idea at a time when trees are valued even more for their contribution to slowing climate change and after the city signed on to the Thurston County Climate Change initiative.”
▪ Lynn Fitz-Hugh: “We are running out of trees, we cannot keep cutting down trees and reduce the buffering they do. We need them now and we must protect them as they are busy protecting us.”
▪ Carolyn Odio: “Trees are the lifeblood of our existence. We need to increase the number of trees, not decrease them.”
Driving much of the concern about tree policy in Lacey was the recent release of data that showed the city’s tree canopy had fallen to 28 percent from 40 percent in 2006.
Some city staff dispute the accuracy of the data, but still acknowledge that there has been a decrease in the city’s tree canopy due to development.
But as spelled out in the city’s urban forest management plan, should the tree canopy dip below 28 percent, it automatically triggers a review of tree policy, Andrews said.
“I truly believe the city is doing a fantastic job in protecting trees,” he said. “Yes, there are always pressures to develop, and there’s pressure to develop around trees, but the city does a fantastic job of doing its job around all these trees.”
This story was originally published March 25, 2022 at 5:45 AM.
