Board urges caution on resiliency tree-planting proposal that would reforest part of golf course

Rob Mackey, a resident of Royce Avenue, urged the board to treat the resiliency board’s tree-planting plan cautiously, saying, “Not mowing without other mitigation of the invasive species potential would be the wrong thing to do,” and warning that free trees still carry long-term costs including deer protection and watering.

Board members and staff described two practical conflicts with locating a food-forest on the proposed golf-course site. Staff said the golf-course master plan designates that area for a future learning center focused on short-game practice and chipping. Staff also flagged a possible transition to electric golf carts that would require a larger, climate-controlled building for charging and maintenance; locating a reforestation project in that footprint could preclude those future facilities.

The parks staff member explained the maintenance tradeoffs: more trees bring leaves, additional routine maintenance and eventual removals when trees die or fall, and may exacerbate invasive species like bush honeysuckle and Bradford pear that are present near the site. Members noted existing issues such as poison hemlock in parts of the course and argued that simply reducing mowing without active invasive-species control could worsen the problem.

Several board members said the resiliency proposal might be a better fit in another park where the planting could be more accessible and would not conflict with golf operations. One member suggested Main Park as an alternative site for a visible demonstration project. The board asked staff to request a formal response from the resiliency group addressing invasives mitigation, deer protection, maintenance responsibilities, and whether the proposal could be relocated to non-golf property.

No formal vote to approve the resiliency plan was taken. Instead, members signaled they were not prepared to support the proposal as presented and asked for more information and alternatives; minutes will reflect that the board discussed the plan and did not approve it. Staff and members agreed to follow up with the proposers and to revisit the item when the resiliency board provides revised plans or alternatives.

The board also discussed process: members agreed the group should receive an explicit update on status and next steps so proposers are not left without a response. The board indicated that, absent a motion to approve, the default reading of the body’s response will be that it did not support forwarding the current proposal to the commission.