Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Trees Emerson topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Lakewood to block removal of 60-inch Garry Oak at Emerson Lake
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Lakewood City Council to deny a developer request that would allow cutting a large Garry Oak in the Woodbrook/Emerson Lake area, saying unpermitted clearing already removed dozens of trees and that mitigation or fines cannot replace a centuries-old specimen.
Dozens of residents pressed the Lakewood City Council on Feb. 2 to protect a large Garry Oak tree on property in the Woodbrook/Emerson Lake area, saying developer activity and a retroactive tree-cutting permit would allow the loss of what they described as an irreplaceable, centuries-old tree.
"No mitigation planting, no fee or replacement plan can replicate what would be lost," Christina Monetti of the Gary Oak Coalition told the council, urging officials to "require preservation of this tree in place." Monetti and other speakers said roughly 70 trees had already been removed from the parcel without permits and called a retroactive permit to remove the final large oak "deception."
Other residents described ecological and hydrologic concerns. Kim Underwood, a 45-year Lakewood resident and watershed volunteer, told the council the oak sits in a federally mapped groundwater recharge area and that oak woodlands, wetlands and lakes operate as a single hydrologic system. "Mature oak root structures facilitate infiltration, reduce surface water runoff and contribute to the groundwater recharge that supports the nearby aquatic systems," Underwood said.
Speakers offered specific examples and local precedents. Cathy Erwin, appearing by Zoom, noted that Tumwater worked around a centuries-old Garry Oak rather than remove it. Several commenters estimated the standing oak could be roughly 900 years old and said fines assessed for earlier illegal clearing had been reduced and therefore were inadequate as deterrence.
City staff and council members described the land-use process and limits of council authority. City Manager Russell and other staff said the project involves two parallel reviews: the tree permit (including mitigation and fines) handled administratively and a conditional-use permit for the project that will go to a hearing examiner. "That conditional use permit will go to the hearing examiner; they'll make the ultimate decision," Russell said, explaining that the hearing examiner can require mitigation or deny a proposed use.
Council members asked staff to ensure the record is complete and suggested residents should raise concerns at the hearing examiner review. Council member Branstetter said that, personally, if a proposed use "can't accommodate the tree remaining, then it shouldn't be allowed," but added that the hearing examiner process provides a forum for imposing mitigation or denial.
Next steps: The project and its conditional-use permit remain under administrative review and will be decided through the hearing-examiner process; residents were told that appeals of the hearing examiner's decision would follow the applicable appeal route. The council did not take a legislative or definitive enforcement action during the Feb. 2 meeting.
