I hear that this agenda item has been postponed, but wanted to register my position. I oppose the removal of this heritage walnut. I live nearby and long have admired and enjoyed this tree. It would take many decades before any new tree could grow large enough to begin to compensate for its loss. I support infill housing, but every alternative should be seriously considered before removing any tree that adds so much to the city. I have read the materials that were provided associated with the hearing, and I am not convinced that the assessment that it would be impossible to build on the parcel at all with the tree there is based on actual evidence. I don't think the opinions of a neighboring property manager qualify as that. There also were references to having considered and dismissed some other plans that did not require removing the tree, but it is unclear what those plans were. I think they are worth exploring.
Support the appeal, oppose removal of the tree, and allow for the development of the lot in a manner that respects and enhances its physical features. The City can fulfill its obligation to protect City trees AND still enable development of the lot.
As an aide, this comment section is confusing in that it requires selection of support, oppose, or neutral but doesn’t clearly frame the issue for support or opposition, so the previous comment is actually supportive of the appeal and opposes removal of the tree. Please correctly document and record the true positions made clear in the text of the comments and not simply count “support” or “opposition” comments. I know the City likes to emphasize the comment count, but that can be deceptive because of the unclear nature of the comment system.
Please support the appeal on behalf of the heritage black walnut tree and deny the permit for its removal. More due diligence is needed; a formal root analysis not been conducted, definitively identifying the drip line — which is a key and critical factor. The tree’s crown can be seen in an aerial photo from 1937 — proving it has been on the parcel for over 81 years, likely 100 years or more — when the parcels were owned by an African American Pioneer woman named Ellen Coger. Until her death in 1920, Ellen owned & transferred several parcels in the city — well before the practice of redlining (or discriminatory real estate practices) were institutionalized. There are project alternatives that allow the tree and development to coexist. We need City leadership to honor the intent of the tree ordinance: defend and protect a vital landmark tree. Please save the tree — and insist on a project that does so.
I hear that this agenda item has been postponed, but wanted to register my position. I oppose the removal of this heritage walnut. I live nearby and long have admired and enjoyed this tree. It would take many decades before any new tree could grow large enough to begin to compensate for its loss. I support infill housing, but every alternative should be seriously considered before removing any tree that adds so much to the city. I have read the materials that were provided associated with the hearing, and I am not convinced that the assessment that it would be impossible to build on the parcel at all with the tree there is based on actual evidence. I don't think the opinions of a neighboring property manager qualify as that. There also were references to having considered and dismissed some other plans that did not require removing the tree, but it is unclear what those plans were. I think they are worth exploring.
Support the appeal, oppose removal of the tree, and allow for the development of the lot in a manner that respects and enhances its physical features. The City can fulfill its obligation to protect City trees AND still enable development of the lot.
As an aide, this comment section is confusing in that it requires selection of support, oppose, or neutral but doesn’t clearly frame the issue for support or opposition, so the previous comment is actually supportive of the appeal and opposes removal of the tree. Please correctly document and record the true positions made clear in the text of the comments and not simply count “support” or “opposition” comments. I know the City likes to emphasize the comment count, but that can be deceptive because of the unclear nature of the comment system.
Please support the appeal on behalf of the heritage black walnut tree and deny the permit for its removal. More due diligence is needed; a formal root analysis not been conducted, definitively identifying the drip line — which is a key and critical factor. The tree’s crown can be seen in an aerial photo from 1937 — proving it has been on the parcel for over 81 years, likely 100 years or more — when the parcels were owned by an African American Pioneer woman named Ellen Coger. Until her death in 1920, Ellen owned & transferred several parcels in the city — well before the practice of redlining (or discriminatory real estate practices) were institutionalized. There are project alternatives that allow the tree and development to coexist. We need City leadership to honor the intent of the tree ordinance: defend and protect a vital landmark tree. Please save the tree — and insist on a project that does so.
Keep the tree. The lot can be developed with the beautiful tree remaining to grace us for many years to come.