We request the city withdraw Item 1 from the consent calendar. We request the city modify the trail design to save the two redwoods (86, 87) and the cottonwood (20). Also it may be premature for the city to move ahead with an approval of the tree/vegetation removal plan given the fact that the Streambed Alteration Agreement is pending before State Fish and Wildlife.
We are requesting that this item be taken off consent so that we can present two requests to the Council. The requests are explained in the attached letter and attachment to that letter.
We request the city withdraw Item 1 from the consent calendar. We request the city modify the trail design to save the two redwoods (#86, #87) and the cottonwood (#20). Also it may be premature for the city to move ahead with an approval of the tree/vegetation removal plan sincei the Streambed Alteration Agreement is pending before State Fish and Wildlife.
I agree with Nancy Mackenize, Greta Lacin, and Daniel Thomas that Item 1 should be removed from the consent calendar to give the city and other interested parties the time needed to find a way to avoid removing these three trees. Separately, the possibility that the cottonwood will be removed to make room for the trail is yet another reason I believe the city seriously erred by locating the trail along the toe of the levee. Locating it on the top of the levee would require no tree/vegetation removal, the top is more than wide enought to accommodate a bike trail and a pedestrian path on either side, the top does not need to be graded or otherwise prepared before asphalt can be put down for the trail, locating it on the top would preserve the more wild and peaceful trail the now runs along the toe of the levee, and because very little if anything needs to be done to prepare the top, locating the trail there should be less expensive. I realize the project has been approved, but it is far from impossible to change the location of the trail to the top of the levee. Thank you.
Please remove Item 1 from the consent calendar. We are requesting the city to consider these comments. The bike trail project alignment needs to be slightly altered in two locations to avoid three large trees. There are three trees we’re requesting the city avoid:
A certified arborist confirmed that #86 and 87 (on project plans) are healthy, large redwoods. They create an entrance to Glen Hall Park and to the bike trail and American River Parkway. Since #85 (in project plans), the large pine, was lost in the winter storms, there appears to be more space in the area to consider a slight shift in the ramp to avoid these trees. Also this ada ramp could be narrowed since maintenance vehicles would be using the main ramp up to the levee.
#20 on the project plans, a cottonwood — this is a magnificent and healthy specimen (confirmed by certified arborist). There appears to be space here if some other smaller trees around it are removed and perhaps part of the trail (the pedestrian path? Or some other design solution) is rerouted around the tree. There is enough space between the foot of the levee and the base of the tree to accommodate maintenance vehicles. This magnificent tree will make the bike path inviting and attractive, a genuine asset to the trail.
These three trees have aesthetic and habitat value that can’t be easily replaced. Since the levee project has removed so much vegetation and created such a desolate area next to the new bike trail and parkway, it’s important for the city to do the best it can to retain its natural beauty and make the bike trail as appealing as possible..
Please remove item 1. from the Consent Calendar: the removal of three large and healthy trees from the Two Rivers Trail at Glen Hall park. Removing the item from the Consent Calendar will allow evaluating this removal more carefully, and but the removal of 2 mature redwoods and a healthy cottonwood can be avoided.The trees are marked as #86,#87, and #20 on the city plan.
I support that item #1 be removed from the calendar until future consideration so the city staff can consider options rather than removing these trees.
I oppose the removal of trees #86,87 and #20 and request the city to withdrawal item 1.
Please reconsider plans to avoid removal of :
#86 - 24” dbh redwood
# 87 - 36” dbh redwood
#20 - 50” dbh Cottonwood
There can be easy work arounds. Thank you
We request the city withdraw Item 1 from the consent calendar. We request the city modify the trail design to save the two redwoods (86, 87) and the cottonwood (20). Also it may be premature for the city to move ahead with an approval of the tree/vegetation removal plan given the fact that the Streambed Alteration Agreement is pending before State Fish and Wildlife.
We are requesting that this item be taken off consent so that we can present two requests to the Council. The requests are explained in the attached letter and attachment to that letter.
We request the city withdraw Item 1 from the consent calendar. We request the city modify the trail design to save the two redwoods (#86, #87) and the cottonwood (#20). Also it may be premature for the city to move ahead with an approval of the tree/vegetation removal plan sincei the Streambed Alteration Agreement is pending before State Fish and Wildlife.
I agree with Nancy Mackenize, Greta Lacin, and Daniel Thomas that Item 1 should be removed from the consent calendar to give the city and other interested parties the time needed to find a way to avoid removing these three trees. Separately, the possibility that the cottonwood will be removed to make room for the trail is yet another reason I believe the city seriously erred by locating the trail along the toe of the levee. Locating it on the top of the levee would require no tree/vegetation removal, the top is more than wide enought to accommodate a bike trail and a pedestrian path on either side, the top does not need to be graded or otherwise prepared before asphalt can be put down for the trail, locating it on the top would preserve the more wild and peaceful trail the now runs along the toe of the levee, and because very little if anything needs to be done to prepare the top, locating the trail there should be less expensive. I realize the project has been approved, but it is far from impossible to change the location of the trail to the top of the levee. Thank you.
Please remove Item 1 from the consent calendar. We are requesting the city to consider these comments. The bike trail project alignment needs to be slightly altered in two locations to avoid three large trees. There are three trees we’re requesting the city avoid:
#86, - 24” dbh redwood
# 87 - 36” dbh redwood
#20 - 50” dbh Cottonwood
A certified arborist confirmed that #86 and 87 (on project plans) are healthy, large redwoods. They create an entrance to Glen Hall Park and to the bike trail and American River Parkway. Since #85 (in project plans), the large pine, was lost in the winter storms, there appears to be more space in the area to consider a slight shift in the ramp to avoid these trees. Also this ada ramp could be narrowed since maintenance vehicles would be using the main ramp up to the levee.
#20 on the project plans, a cottonwood — this is a magnificent and healthy specimen (confirmed by certified arborist). There appears to be space here if some other smaller trees around it are removed and perhaps part of the trail (the pedestrian path? Or some other design solution) is rerouted around the tree. There is enough space between the foot of the levee and the base of the tree to accommodate maintenance vehicles. This magnificent tree will make the bike path inviting and attractive, a genuine asset to the trail.
These three trees have aesthetic and habitat value that can’t be easily replaced. Since the levee project has removed so much vegetation and created such a desolate area next to the new bike trail and parkway, it’s important for the city to do the best it can to retain its natural beauty and make the bike trail as appealing as possible..
Please remove item 1. from the Consent Calendar: the removal of three large and healthy trees from the Two Rivers Trail at Glen Hall park. Removing the item from the Consent Calendar will allow evaluating this removal more carefully, and but the removal of 2 mature redwoods and a healthy cottonwood can be avoided.The trees are marked as #86,#87, and #20 on the city plan.
I support that item #1 be removed from the calendar until future consideration so the city staff can consider options rather than removing these trees.