Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Lacey to pause sidewalk program that would remove mature street trees
Summary
Several residents told the Lacey City Council the city's proposed sidewalk‑repair plan would remove mature street trees, reduce canopy cover, worsen heat‑island effects and damage neighborhood character; speakers urged the council to explore root barriers and other alternatives before cutting trees.
Dozens of residents pressed the Lacey City Council on June 2 to halt a sidewalk‑repair program that, they said, would remove large, mature street trees in neighborhoods across the city.
Several speakers, including Moren Dannon and Margaret Green, described the trees slated for removal as 20 years or older and said the canopy should be preserved. “If those trees are removed, it will result in a substantial loss of shade and create heat islands,” Moren Dannon said, arguing that higher pavement temperatures accelerate asphalt deterioration and raise cooling costs for nearby homes.
In public comment, Margaret Green pointed to the city’s tree ordinances (transcript references ordinance numbers 1432 and 1220) and the comprehensive plan’s canopy goals, and urged staff and council to investigate alternatives such as root barriers, flexible sidewalk materials, sidewalk decommissioning on one side of the street, and targeted root pruning rather than wholesale removals. “Removing trees is counter to these council and city goals,” Green said.
John Green and other commenters gave specific criticisms of the city’s list of trees proposed for removal, saying the list contains errors (for example, trees recently pruned or newly planted that are nonetheless marked for removal) and that current root‑barrier installation guidance has not been updated. “We found that the trees that the city has root‑pruned in the past are all still alive and quite healthy,” John Green said, asking the council to delay the project until maps, lists and specifications are corrected.
Diane Chamusco highlighted public‑health and environmental benefits: improved air quality, reduced asthma, stormwater retention and carbon sequestration tied to mature urban trees. She urged the council to allow more time for alternatives research and to consider long‑term impacts on neighborhood aesthetics and property values.
City staff did not present a formal response to individual technical claims during public comment, but the council heard repeated requests to return with more information and to consider alternatives that preserve canopy where possible. No formal action was taken at the June 2 meeting on the sidewalk program; public comment closed and the council moved on to later agenda items.
What happens next: Council members indicated they would follow up with staff to correct any factual errors in project lists and to provide more analysis of alternatives. The sidewalk‑repair project remains under consideration pending those follow‑ups.
