Mark;

Thanks for your thoughtful questions and concerns for this weeks
volunteer project in Mitchell Park.  The project has been somewhat
accelerated due to both the donors window for funding and our desire to
plant within a timeframe the is in the best interest of the trees
health.  That being said, we have always, and will continue to
coordinate and communicate with the neighborhood.

Upon hearing of this opportunity for donated trees, we began working
with the neighborhood office and the MPW and MPE neighborhood
associations.  Our staff specifically recommended Mitchell Park as the
most suitable site for the donation of trees due to the overwhelming
damage sustained this past summer with the monsoon storms.  Our parks
staff and city arborist met with neighborhood representatives,
coordinated by Shauna Warner, to explore the possibility of a
partnership.  Both Marcia and Linda graciously took our offer back to
their respective boards.  Only after their review and approval did we
begin to move the project forward.

I have been assured by our arborist that the tree selections and
locations will be in the best interest of the park and more sustainable
that some of the previous plantings in the park.  Mesquites, in
particular, are most susceptible to storm damage and we are moving away
from mass plantings of them to avoid catastrophic loss.    The palette
of trees was shared with and their proposed locations were reviewed by
representatives of the neighborhood.  Further, our arborist has offered
his professional opinion that plantings are appropriately spaced and
distributed.

As for the ChildsPlay plantings, the agreement entered into by the City
and ChildsPlay still holds the City responsible for the care and
maintenance of the grounds.  As we maintained them prior to the transfer
of the property, we agreed to maintain them into the future.  As
ChildsPlay has made significant improvements to the irrigation system,
it will also provide us a better chance to insure plant survival. 

All of the planned efforts for this weekend will have no adverse effect
on future plans for Mitchell Park.  It is and remains our intent that
when the park comes up for master planning we will work with the
neighborhood to ensure the best plan to meet their needs is achieved.
Those that have been done to date have preserved the specimen trees
already in existence and added more where appropriate.  It almost seems
that we can never have too many trees.

I hope that this has helped in responding to your concerns.  Our goal is
to deliver a small replacement of quality trees for a neighborhood park
that received the brunt of this past summer's storms.  We value our
relationship with the neighborhood associations and look forward to a
great partnership this coming weekend.  I hope that you can participate
along with us.

Mark Richwine, Manager
Tempe Parks and Recreation Department
3500 S Rural Road
Tempe, AZ  85282
480.350.5325

-----Original Message-----
From: Hearn, Shelley
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:57 PM
To: 'mark lymer'; Woods, Lillian; Enright, Molly; Ripley, Nikki; Kulaga,
Jeff; Partridge, Sheri; Warner, Shauna; Crusa, Mike; Gasperich, Kathy;
Hallman, Hugh; Woods, Corey; Arredondo, Ben; Navarro, Joel; Ellis,
Shana; Shekerjian, Onnie; Mitchell, Mark; Yennie, Mari; Meyer, Charlie;
Wakeman, Amber
Subject: RE: Council Communicator Message From mark lymer

Mr. Lymer:

On behalf of the Mayor and City Council, thank you for your email. I am
forwarding your questions and concerns to Mark Richwine, Parks and
Recreation Manager. He will get back to you with a response.

Thank you,
Shelley Hearn


Shelley Hearn
Community Relations Manager
City  of Tempe
31 E. Fifth Street
Tempe, AZ 85281
 
480-350-8906 Office
602-819-4605 Cell
480-350-8996 Fax
www.tempe.gov/communityrelations/
 
Pursuant to A.R.S. 39-121, this e-mail and any attachments may be
considered a public record subject to public inspection. Please be
advised that the public, including news media, may request access to
e-mail sent and received pursuant to the Arizona Public Records law and
the Freedom of Information Act.

-----Original Message-----
From: mark lymer [mailto:mlymer@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:23 AM
To: Woods, Lillian; Enright, Molly; Ripley, Nikki; Hearn, Shelley;
Kulaga, Jeff; Partridge, Sheri; Warner, Shauna; Crusa, Mike; Gasperich,
Kathy; Hallman, Hugh; Woods, Corey; Arredondo, Ben; Navarro, Joel;
Ellis, Shana; Shekerjian, Onnie; Mitchell, Mark; Yennie, Mari; Meyer,
Charlie; Wakeman, Amber
Subject: Council Communicator Message From mark lymer

From: mark lymer
Street Address: 719 west tenth street
Phone: 480-242-3467
Email: mlymer@juno.com

Mark Richwine, Parks Director-

this is the schedule that was emailed to board members regarding tree
locations in the park.

I will ask
>>> him (Craig Hayton) to place markers in the park on Monday or Tuesday

>>> indicating where each tree will go and what kind of tree he plans on

>>> placing in that spot.  Holes will be dug on Wednesday.

I walked the park yesterday and again this morning looking over
locations. I was only able to count 26 trees in the park itself and 8
trees that seem to certainly be in Child's Play property. (maybe a
couple others too)

It was suggested to Parks a couple weeks ago that a plan be drawn with
existing trees, also describing the condition of each. It was also
suggested that a plan be shown to the neighbors that included existing
and proposed new locations and species. This is not unusual practice, in
fact it is actual City procedure as required for all projects by
landscape architects and planners when installing plants on City
property.

The locations of the trees do not appear to be measured locations. I
casually stepped off spacing between some along McKemy. This is
something that a landscape plan is required to provide.

The locations that are flagged also have some kind of mark painted on
the ground. I suppose this is to indicate the species of tree. The marks
meaning have not been made available to a public source, so no one is
for sure, at least I'm not, what tree is going where.

Also, some new trees locations seem to be too close to other trees,
especially very large mature trees. I'm not an arborist, but it has been
my experience that trees located as such fair poorly. I can show you an
example in the Park already, a tree that should be removed or relocated
and should never have been planted in that location in the first place.


Also the east entry off Mitchell seems to be over planted, with about 7
new trees. This is a design decision, and your arborist may be an expert
in tree health, but i dont know his qualifications in landscape
architecture or planning. It seems that more trees along Mitchell,
within the Dog Park, to shade the equally important sidewalk on the
eastern boundary of the park, would be in order.


I've been told the City is contracted with Child's Play to 'maintain'
the landscape, for whatever reason. I dont know who the 'donor' of the
trees is, nor have any knowledge of stipulations for use of the donated
trees, but it seems that placing at least 8 of 40 total trees (as we
were told in emails from city staff) on private property is unusual.

At least a dozen trees were either knocked down or severely damaged and
had to be removed in the Park itself in the recent storm. Trees on
Child's play property were damaged, but none were knocked down or had to
be removed. It seems to me the more urgent need to replace recently
removed and downed trees, donated to the City would be best applied in
the Park at thoughtful and sometimes more appropriate locations.

I do agree that the locations of trees proposed on Child's Play property
are appropriate, but feel that Child's Play itself could invest about
$1000 to improve their own property. The neighborhood went out of it's
way a couple years ago to include Child's Play in it's tree grant
application, and about 18 trees were planted on Child's Play property
with that grant. Since then, Child's Play chose to ignore the sidewalk
on McKemy adjacent to their property when they planted 4 trees in the
center of a granite landscaped area, that will never shade the sidewalk.
Shading the sidewalk was the principal reason for receiving the grant.

I understand there is some kind of fast timeline to install the donated
trees. No one is sure why. Residents of the neighborhood sincerely
appreciate the opportunity to have input in this endeavor. If not for
the residents long ago, this would not be a park now. There is a deep
appreciation for it's condition. But it can be a cumbersome process to
have appropriate notification to every resident. We understand and
acknowledge the role the Board of the Association is performing.
Nevertheless, a one day turn-around for comments after staking, which,
as proposed has not changed since some early comments, is not really
feasible. Nor is it in alignment with best practices for park design as
established by City process. It would certainly be helpful if a plan
were posted on the neighborhood website, that identifies the locations
and species.

Go to neighborhoodlink.com, tempe, mitchell park west to see the site.

The neighborhood is aware of and excited about a master planning process
in the future, somewhat indeterminate, for Mitchell Park. In order to
get more 'bang for the buck' residents have emphasized that locations
for new trees in the park account for potential changes in the overall
design. There are more 'safe' locations for new trees, where changes to
the overall design of the park would not recquire relocating and thus
risking the health of a 4 or 5 or more year old tree. Relocating trees
of that age is also costly.

thanks for your time and cooperation - Mark

cc: City Council