Residents urge Littleton to form a Tree Trust, protect soft trails and limit pesticide use after Costco clearing

Public comments at the Environmental Stewardship Board meeting focused on three recurring concerns: recent tree removal at a planned Costco site, preservation of soft-surface trails, and limits on pesticide use.

John Marchetti, a resident representing District 4, asked whether Littleton's environmental stewardship process requires replacement of trees that die after planting and whether the city requires drought-tolerant species recommended by the city forester. Marchetti also urged the board to consider a policy similar to recently adopted buffer rules in other cities that limit new gas stations and car washes.

Gregory Sullivan, a District 4 resident, reported neighborhood canvassing and said about 20,200 signatures had been collected on a flyer he distributed. Sullivan said the canvass focused on environmental impacts and alleged that "all the trees on the Costco property have been cut"; he described the site as looking "like a killing field" and urged creation of a Littleton Tree Trust to coordinate planting and protection. Sullivan said the developer donated $70,000 intended to address some of the tree removal; he said that amount was intended as a startup fund for replacement plantings but that 280 trees had been removed while funds were provided for only 139.

Ned Stern, a resident, urged the board to act to prevent "the ongoing hardening of Littleton's soft trails," citing a South Suburban decision to pour 190 feet of concrete on part of a spur trail between South Prince Street and the Mary Carter Greenway. Stern said a South Suburban survey showed neighbors preferred crusher-finisher (soft) surfacing by a margin of 2.3 to 1 and asked the board to add the matter to the next meeting's agenda.

Pam Chadbourne, a nearby resident, asked South Suburban to stop using neonicotinoid pesticides and advocated planting more native species and restoring landscape buffers and setbacks in zoning (she referenced a ULUC update). She said habitat value should be a metric for city plantings and urged a habitat expert be consulted rather than relying only on a tree specialist.

Why it matters: Tree loss and hard-surface trail conversions affect neighborhood character, stormwater, habitat and public recreation. Commenters said they want the board to use its role to press for replacement plantings, local stewardship funding and stronger public engagement before significant design changes are made.

Board response and next steps

Board members and staff acknowledged the comments and discussed ways to include tree-planting and trail-preservation recommendations in the materials they will present to City Council. The board also noted the distinction between public comment (requests and observations by residents) and formal board actions; the board did not adopt policy changes at the meeting but agreed to include relevant public concerns in the March 25 study-session packet.

Ending

Speakers repeatedly asked the board to add specific agenda items at future meetings and to ensure residents receive clear notice and opportunities for input before changes to trails or park assets are finalized.