Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge city to halt clearing for Gardenia plat near Lake Bonney
Summary
Residents at the Jan. 28 Bonney Lake City Council meeting pressed the city to reconsider approval of the Gardenia plat and a related tree‑cutting permit, citing loss of about 5 acres of urban forest, wildlife impacts, narrow notice radius, and high appeal fees; a hearing examiner date and permit appeal are pending.
Dozens of Bonney Lake residents told the City Council on Jan. 28 that the approved Gardenia plat and an associated tree‑cutting permit threaten a roughly 5‑acre urban forest near Lake Bonney and asked the city to pause or modify the project while appeals proceed.
Community members said the development would clear about 4.09 acres, remove 312 trees classified by the city as “significant” and allow only 111 such trees to remain, and would place 19 homes roughly 600 feet from Lake Bonney. "The city approved cutting down an urban forest to build 19 houses for the benefit of 50 to 60 people," said Sheryl Robertson, who identified herself as a Bonney Lake resident. Residents also said the city issued a SEPA determination of non‑significance and moved forward without a full environmental impact statement.
The comments sharpened direct concerns about wildlife, water quality, neighborhood safety and public notice. "This forest sits on the original 1,000 acres of Bonney Lake and is surrounded by homes," Kelly Stevens said. "The forest keeps Lake Bonney healthy and beautifies our area." Several speakers referenced photographs and sightings of deer, coyotes and a black bear on the property as evidence of habitat value.
Speakers also criticized the city’s notice and appeals procedures. Jason Stevens said the official radius for notifying neighbors about the plat was "embarrassingly small" and left many nearby residents unaware of the application. Catherine Ford told the council that the tree‑cutting permit was approved Nov. 14 and appealed by the community on Dec. 2; she said a hearing examiner has set a hearing for Feb. 26 and that the city charges $1,000 to appeal the tree permit while the SEPA appeal fee cited by other speakers was $4,000.
Residents urged alternatives, including negotiating a reduced footprint, stronger tree retention, traffic and pedestrian safety measures on nearby Myers Road and, repeatedly, preserving the parcel as conserved open space or a public park. "We are asking that you explore the option of placing this land in a conservancy for public use as a park," said Connie Decker, reading a prepared statement and citing conservation steps already taken in the Fennel Creek watershed.
Speakers representing the Lake Bonney Conservation Association and other neighbors asked the council to weigh the project's long‑term impacts against short‑term tax revenue. Several callers noted Pierce County guidance that maps identifying sensitive species are general and do not replace site surveys; speakers also cited federal protections for some bird species, naming the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when urging careful review.
The council did not take action on the Gardenia plat during the Jan. 28 meeting. The record provided by residents shows: the tree‑cutting permit was approved Nov. 14; the community filed an appeal Dec. 2; a hearing examiner date is set for Feb. 26; and appellants cited both the city’s SEPA determination and the separate tree permit in their challenges. Residents also reported they observed contractors working on the site before the notice of decision was posted and filed a report with city staff; the transcript records the complaint but does not show a city response beyond an instruction from a staff member to file a report.
The public comments closed with requests that the city review its notification radius and appeal fee structure so neighbors can meaningfully participate in future land‑use decisions. Catherine Ford pointed to Pierce County Code (PCC 2.05.020a) as an example of a policy that refunds appellant fees when an administrative decision is overturned; she said Bonney Lake’s fee structure felt punitive to ordinary residents.
The hearing examiner’s Feb. 26 hearing on the tree‑cutting permit remains the next formal step recorded on the transcript. Residents said they plan to continue to press the city and the developer, Caliber Company Inc., for conservation options or a substantially modified plan.
