Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal And Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, conservation groups press Lakewood council for independent review after removal of large Douglas fir
Summary
Residents and the Gary Oak Coalition urged the Lakewood City Council to commission an independent audit and require city staff to follow certified arborist recommendations after the recent removal of a large Douglas fir on Lake Stilocum Drive; speakers said the arborist had recommended monitoring rather than removal.
Several residents and members of the Gary Oak Coalition told the Lakewood City Council on July 6 that the city should require independent scientific review and greater transparency after the removal of a large Douglas fir near Lake Stilocum Drive.
Karen Herzog, who said she has lived near the tree since 1981, said she expected to see evidence that the tree was diseased or hazardous as it was felled but instead found the tree appeared solid; she asked for a post‑removal autopsy or clearer public explanation when an arborist’s recommendation is not followed.
Christina Manetti of the Gary Oak Coalition said the city hired an arborist whose report recommended annual monitoring of the tree’s lean and did not call for immediate removal; she asked councilmembers to require that independent arborist and biologist recommendations be followed as “best available science” for future right‑of‑way tree decisions, or for a written scientific explanation when staff diverge from those recommendations. Manetti urged the council to support a proposed independent audit of city operations to review tree‑related decisionmaking.
Other residents, including Haley Ivy and James Dunlop, linked canopy loss to heat‑mitigation concerns and neighborhood livability. Multiple commenters said local newspaper coverage had described the tree as “dead,” which they said contradicted the arborist’s addendum.
City staff did not present a technical rebuttal to the public comments during the meeting. The council did not vote to launch an audit at the July 6 meeting; several councilmembers noted the request and said they would discuss next steps in future meetings.
