Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission upholds denial to remove liquid‑amber at 5 Forest Glen; owner advised to submit additional evidence if damage recurs
Summary
The commission voted to uphold staff’s denial of a 22‑inch liquid‑amber removal request at 5 Forest Glen, while noting the owner’s later excavation found a leaking irrigation main; commissioners and staff said new, material evidence could be resubmitted under city rules.
The Parks & Recreation Commission on Thursday voted to deny an appeal and uphold staff’s decision refusing removal of a 22‑inch liquid‑amber street tree at 5 Forest Glen Street.
Staff Urban Forest Manager Russell Hansen told commissioners the liquid‑amber was in fair health and structure, and that while the property manager subsequently uncovered a leaking 2‑inch irrigation main in excavations near the tree, staff’s on-site assessment did not show structural failure or public-safety conditions that met the local removal criteria. "We felt that, ultimately… it did not need to be removed in alignment with good forestry practices," Hansen said.
Selena Gillette, representing the management company for the property owner, described repeated infrastructure problems she attributed to roots at Unit 5: a prior domestic/sewer repair in which the owner paid nearly $13,000 to repair lines, a raised walkway and a door frame repair, and more recent evidence of an irrigation-main leak revealed after additional excavation. "We paid almost $13,000 to repair both of those lines," Gillette said, and asked the commission to allow removal of the single tree that borders the irrigation main.
Commissioners discussed the evidentiary record and the limits of staff’s initial ground inspection, noting staff lacked full access to subsurface root extent at the time of the report. Legal staff and commissioners reminded participants that the municipal code provides an avenue for a property owner to show a material change in circumstances and request reconsideration; the commission’s denial in this hearing is recorded in the standard form. Several commissioners said that with clear, documented new evidence of material infrastructure failure attributable to the tree’s roots, the property owner may petition the community services director for reexamination under the code.
Ending: The commission’s vote upheld staff’s denial; staff will advise the owner on next steps for repair, replacement planting and how to document material changes for potential resubmission.
