My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Parks and Public Landscaping Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2019 12 05
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDSCAPING ADVISORY BOARD (fka HORTICULTURE FORESTRY ADVISORY BOARD)
>
2000-2019 Horticulture and Forestry Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
2019 Parks and Public Landscaping Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
Parks and Public Landscaping Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2019 12 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 8:40:38 AM
Creation date
12/31/2019 10:18:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
As for the safety issue raised, it seems the cottonwood became a safety concern after the issue <br />with the utility box came to light. I question why it has not been a safety issue, or rather why <br />has it been an acceptable risk, for the preceding decades? Does the city plan to remove <br />additional healthy cottonwoods from city parks based on this precedent? As I said at the <br />meeting, my kids walk under that tree multiple times a day. If I had any concern over its <br />integrity I would be the first one calling the city. <br />All I have been asking and continue to respectfully request is that the City do a quick reset and <br />take a sincere and objective look at possible alternatives. From my perspective, the City is <br />attempting to work backward front the conclusion that the tree is worthless and must go and is <br />therefore not inclined to give alternatives a serious or complete hearing. And, while I've no <br />doubt there is considerable process and cost involved to any governmental action like this (as <br />outlined in your preceding email), I get the impression the City is leaning into the process to <br />present obstacles as opposed to seeking workable and cost effective solutions to the core issue. <br />Presented with an honest attempt to assess alternatives that assigns a healthy mature tree like <br />this some value, I will remove my objection, if it is demonstrated a reasonable alternative does <br />not exist. I also believe if the City is committed to finding a workable alternative that one likely <br />exists. <br />If you would indulge me once again in forwarding my thoughts and concerns on to the Board I <br />would appreciate it. <br />Sincerely, <br />Justin Solomon <br />#2 Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda <br />Dear Mr. Johnson, <br />I admit to being shocked to hear of the imminent plan for this particularly large tree. The first <br />reason is the implication that the existence of this tree is only of interest to the adjacent <br />neighbor, Justin Solomon. I'm quite sure if you provided what I believe is appropriate public <br />notice to the surrounding neighborhoods you would find considerably more interest —me for <br />one at 490 Lincoln Ct. I not only can see the tree from my house but have walked over many <br />times to specifically to observe and listen to the large raptors that roost there —Great Horned <br />Owls and Red Tailed Hawks. <br />In this era of disturbing climate change and significantly reduced bird populations we must not <br />only preserve existing urban forest canopy when it is easy, but bend over backwards to <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.