Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jubilee Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jubilee residents deliver 263-signature petition asking Lacey to spare mature trees during sidewalk repairs
Summary
At the July 7 Lacey City Council meeting Jubilee residents presented a petition signed by 263 people urging the city to use tree-preserving sidewalk-repair methods instead of removing about 140 mature trees; staff offered a follow-up briefing and possible work session before final action.
At the July 7 meeting of the Lacey City Council, Jubilee residents including Margaret Green and John Green presented a petition signed by 263 residents asking the city to pursue alternatives that would preserve roughly 140 mature street trees while repairing sidewalks.
"The reason for action is listed on the petition as ...treeremoval destroys our urban forest resource and all its many benefits and values," Margaret Green told the council as she handed in the petition. John Green urged the city to adopt methods other cities use, saying, "the city of Lacey talks the talk when it comes to tree city... but it fails to walk the walk." Both speakers said they support sidewalk repair but want the work done in ways that retain more of the existing canopy.
The petition and comments focused on three concrete requests: delay the current timeline to allow broader community engagement, evaluate alternatives such as panel-lifting and root-pruning that Jubilee residents say preserve canopy (John Green described use of a "sidewalk sucker," root pruning and installation of root barriers), and ensure replacement-tree requirements and watering obligations do not unduly burden senior residents. John Green noted past repairs in Jubilee that he said avoided tree removals and told council he provided photos to staff.
Doc Clayton, another Jubilee resident, told council he supports pruning some trees and removing others for safety, but urged the city, the HOA and the arborist to work together and asked council to "wind back the clock" on the project timetable. He also noted concern about legal exposure, saying a prior lawsuit influenced the approach.
City management responded to the comments by offering to schedule a background briefing at an upcoming work session so council members can review the full analysis before any final decision. The city manager suggested staff could include the item on the July 21 council meeting packet and explore an earlier work session; staff committed to follow up on scheduling and to provide additional background materials.
What’s next: Council did not take formal action on the sidewalk project at this meeting. Staff will prepare a background presentation and return with additional information and scheduling options for council consideration at upcoming meetings.
Provenance: Topic introduced SEG 030; discussion and staff follow-up covered through SEG 327.
