Lacey adopts tighter restrictions on removing trees from residential lots
Lacey homeowners will be allowed to remove no more than three trees from their property in a five-year period under a new rule adopted by the Lacey City Council.
After months of discussion about tree removal, the council decided Thursday that a more restrictive residential tree removal policy is the best route for the city.
Council member Michael Steadman made the motion and the council voted 4-2 to approve it. “It just shows that we value our tree canopy,” Steadman said.
The existing residential tree removal threshold was no more than five trees in a three-year period. Another proposal being considered was to allow a ratio of four trees, either replanted or existing, on a 5,000-square-foot lot.
Planning manager Ryan Andrews pointed out that there was a fairness issue at stake: A person with a much larger lot and more trees would have little flexibility under the city’s “5 and 3” rule, but would gain more flexibility under the ratio proposal.
An example used by the city was a site of more than two acres with 220 trees. Under the ratio proposal, tree advocates argued that a lot of trees could be removed; however, the city countered that if the property owner wanted to remove all the trees and replant to meet the ratio standard, it would trigger an entirely separate land-clearing process.
Steadman was unmoved and instead proposed replacing the existing residential threshold with no more than three trees in a five-year period. Council members Robin Vazquez, Carolyn Cox and Malcolm Miller joined him in supporting that motion.
Vazquez said she was on the planning commission when the tree removal proposal was originally discussed.
“My position on this has changed,” she said. “I have heard from a host of residents who want more tree protections, not fewer, and I haven’t heard from a single resident who has a big lot who wants to cut down trees faster. I have heard from a lot of people who want to uphold our values as a tree city.”
Cox said she was firmly in support of the motion. “We’re losing ground on trees and it’s time to take the first steps to halt degradation as much as possible,” she said.
Miller echoed Vazquez’s comments, saying he hasn’t heard from anyone on a large lot who wants to take down more trees.
“The only real feedback we get is ‘please help us protect more trees,’” he said. “I think if we’re being asked, and we have a choice and we can do the protection, I think we should do it.”
Council member Ed Kunkel and Mayor Andy Ryder voted against Steadman’s motion. Councilman Lenny Greenstein was not at the meeting.
“I understand that we want to protect and preserve our natural resources, but we also have to respect private property rights,” Kunkel said.
In a message to The Olympian, tree advocate and resident Lynn Fitz-Hugh praised the council’s decision.
“This was a good vote,” she said in her email. “It means that more stormwater will be managed by the trees. It means homes will be cooled in the summer and warmed in the winter by the shelter of nearby trees. It means more pollutants will be taken out of the air and, most importantly, that each saved tree will keep drawing down carbon and storing it every year.”
This story was originally published June 18, 2022 at 5:00 AM.
