New Search
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> To: HAMMITT Bob <br /> Subject: FW: PUD's and Trees <br /> Date: Friday, September 13, 1996 6:53AM <br /> Hi Bob, <br /> I received a voice mail from Roland yesterday in which he told me that the earliest it seems he is going to <br /> get a group together to talk about this in the 7th of October. Perhaps we could have a final product within <br /> a week of that date, but I'm hesitant to think a process of this nature would produce final documentation <br /> that quickly. <br /> I have some concerns since this is beyond the cutoff for our division's submittals for Supplemental Budget <br /> . As a strategy, I think it would be advantageous for us to go ahead and submit to Carolyn a supplemental <br /> budget item on this issue to act as a place holder until Roland is finished. I have forwarded to you a draft <br /> of what I believe this would entail (I used a SLCM form since it does a good job of capturing the needed <br /> information). <br /> From all of our internal conversations with the involved staff I'm fairly sure what the end result is going to <br /> be. If the goal of this process is to set something in place that will result in conditions of development <br /> regarding trees being enforced then someone will have to take a proactive stance to perform inspections in <br /> the field prior to and immediately after the tree felling occurs. The two most likely work units to perform <br /> this activity is the LUMS (who now have the program but who feel they don't have the expertise and <br /> staffing to perform these field inspections) or the Urban Foresters office (who are the ones that make the <br /> recommendations for tree preservation that the Planning Division inserts into the Land Use Activity as <br /> conditions of development.) In conversations between the two groups, both the LUMS and the Urban <br /> Forester wants this responsibility to go to the Urban Forester's office. That is why I feel Roland's process <br /> is going to come up with the same result. (If there is money available to make this change is entirely a <br /> different question!! If there is not, then we should leave the responsibility with the LUMS since we could <br /> do no better than they in that scenario.) <br /> Please let me know what you think. <br /> Thanks <br /> Johnny <br /> From: LYLE Les A <br /> To: ANDERSEN Chris F; FARKAS Abe K; MILLER Marsha A <br /> Cc: BRIDGES Beth B; HAMMITT Bob; MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> Subject: PUD's and Trees <br /> Date: Tuesday, August 13, 1996 12:58PM <br /> I thought I'd put together a short summary of what I thought I heard at our meeting yesterday. Certainly <br /> correct anything you think is incorrect or needs further clarification. Thanks Les L <br /> 1. The focus will be on PUD's and short term fixes at this point. Upon completion of the service profile <br /> work, there will be a determination of whether to proceed with a more comprehensive review of the <br /> processing of tree issues during the development review process. <br /> 2. The systems team will be used for at most a one -day session with a focused group discussing the fixes <br /> we can put in place now. The participants will be Johnny Medlin, Scott Plamondon., Mike McKerrow, <br /> Steve Nystrom. Roland will be the lead resource from the systems team due to his knowledge of the <br /> Urban Forest Service Profile. <br /> 3. Process review will occur sometime in September due to vacations, etc. <br /> 4. A couple of ideas came out of our discussion including more precise language for the applicant as to <br /> when the tree plan would have to be submitted with respect to final PUD and if notice would need to be <br /> provided in advance of any tree removal. <br /> Page 1 <br />