New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Trees & Tree Commission
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
Street Trees.Urban Forestry
>
Trees & Tree Commission
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2014 2:24:44 PM
Creation date
7/9/2014 2:24:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
External_View
No
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
344
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
agreed to discuss issues concerning EWEB. Other members will select their <br /> respective issues. <br /> Mr. Post mentioned that the presentation should be positive or else it could <br /> be counterproductive. Mr. Ahlijian agreed. <br /> IV. URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN <br /> Ms. Richman explained that during the last work session the commission had <br /> identified these items as priorities: 1) master plan; 2) education; 3) <br /> historic trees; and 4) ordinances. She then reviewed the action items posted <br /> under these categories. <br /> Mr. Ahlijian asked the commission about the type of plan it wanted and gave <br /> examples. He assumed that, as agreed at the last work session, this first <br /> plan would concentrate on trees. Mr. Post passed around work plan copies <br /> from Modesto, California, and Raleigh, North Carolina, noting that there are <br /> many master plans from other cities in the PARCS Department office that could <br /> serve as examples; however, most of the plans consider only street trees and <br /> do not cover the full urban forest. <br /> Mr. Hale commented that many cities, including Portland and Seattle, separate <br /> street tree plans from park plans. The commission preferred to keep its <br /> plans together. <br /> The group discussed necessary plan topics and how to approach each priority. <br /> ( Mr. Medlin felt the commission need only show the priority areas. Mr. Kroeck <br /> added that precise definitions were not necessary. Mr. Kroeck further noted <br /> that it would be staff's responsibility to refine the plan with commission <br /> review. <br /> After regrouping the posted action items, the commission created a separate <br /> plan for education and revised the draft master plan as follows: <br /> 1. Define and recommend the preparation of a master plan: <br /> I. Street Tree Program <br /> A. Goals and Objectives <br /> B. Legal Authority and Ordinances <br /> C. Philosophy, Policies, and Guidelines <br /> D. Inventory <br /> II. Park Trees (with A through D as above) <br /> III. Historic and Special Trees (with A through D as above) <br /> IV. Trees in Natural or Minimally Developed Areas, e.g., River <br /> Bank, Delta Ponds, Ridgeline, etc. (with A through D as <br /> above) <br /> ( MINUTES - -Tree Commission March 29, 1990 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.