Trees are high on city's list
Published 12:21 pm Thursday, December 11, 2008
By Dennis Box
The Courier-Herald
Standing and falling trees have become a hot topic in Bonney Lake over the past six months.
Residents, developers and neighbors have come before the City Council and city staff with complaints and concerns about trees and the effects of cutting them down.
City Councilman Mark Hamilton sponsored an ordinance establishing a community forestry program that was unanimously approved at the May 24 council meeting.
The ordinance applies only to trees on public land in the city limits of Bonney Lake.
"This allows the city to protect and manage timber in the city," Hamilton said. "My intent is to build up appreciation for what we have and to remind people trees add to the quality of life. A lot of people moved here for the natural beauty."
The ordinance allows Bonney Lake to be part of the National Arbor Day Foundation Tree City USA. The program is designed to help cities put together a program to manage trees as a resource.
The foundation lists four standards for cities to meet - a tree board, a tree care ordinance, a forestry program with an annual budget of $2 per capita and an Arbor Day observance and proclamation.
The park board agreed to act as a tree board with assistance from Public Works.
Hamilton said the plan is for the city to retain an arborist on an "as needed" contract.
"The arborist can find and advise the city about removing and replanting diseased or dead trees," Hamilton said.
The City Council will have to budget $2 per capita for the program. Hamilton said donations of services or material count towards the forestry budget.
Finally the council will establish an Arbor Day during the year.
A second part of the city's urban forest management program involves a new tree retention ordinance concerning private property.
Two tree-clearing disputes that erupted this year prompted the ordinance.
The city staff and council fielded numerous complaints from residents March 9 when Michelle Gunn, after being granted a tree removal permit from the city, had 13 trees cut down on her property at 8710 188th Ave. E., behind Michelle's Studio of Dance.
The staff and council have also wrestled with a neighborhood dispute for six months regarding the Larios property at 7720 190th Ave. E. Jessica Larios was granted a tree clearing permit last October for a short plat to build two houses on her 1.46 acres.
Larios' neighbors have vehemently complained to the council and staff about the trees being cleared and storm water problems on their property.
"We have been a city of trees," Mayor Bob Young said. "The question is how do we balance the rights of private property and trees. It's an ongoing problem."
The tree retention ordinance is in the process of being written by staff members in the Planning Department. The ordinance will go before the Planning Commission for review and to a City Council workshop.
"A healthy city should have some canopy of trees," Planning Manager Steve Ladd said. "An ordinance is not a panacea, but it can help a city manage an urban forest."
The city changed its process for approving tree removal permits after the Gunn and Larios disputes. Now all tree removal permits must be approved by the planning manager.
On May 19 the city released a summary of a questionnaire handed out to residents concerning tree management.
Staff noted the response was too small to be considered statistically valid and was at best a rough indication of the public view.
The staff interpretation in the summary document stated: "Apparently, most respondents do not favor city intrusion into private tree cutting decisions, especially where the land is already developed. The city should take this into account in its new ordinance. However, people often have an almost schizophrenic view of development regulations. They are against them when their property is in question and for them when someone else's property is in question."
The following is the summary of the tree retention questionnaire.
Should people (property owners or developers) be allowed to cut:
€ all the trees they want on their own residential lots?
24 yes, 86 percent, four no, 14 percent
€ all the trees they want on new development sites?
14 yes, 50 percent, 14 no, 50 percent
€ trees in order to create views?
27 yes, 93 percent, two no, 7 percent
€ trees when they don't want to rake leaves anymore or when they want to build a deck?
26 yes, 90 percent, three no, 10 percent
€ trees on raw acreage not proposed for development as long as they replant?
21 yes, 84 percent, four no 16 percent
€ trees under six inches in diameter without restrictions?
21 yes, 88 percent, three no, 13 percent
€ alders and cottonwoods without restriction?
22 yes, 88 percent, three no, 12 percent; and
€ trees when necessary to develop land they bought as an investment?
19 yes, 86 percent, three no 14 percent.
Dennis Box can be reached at dbox@cmg-northwest2.go-vip.net/courierherald.
