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
MEMO <br /> TO Les Lyle <br /> Paul Klope <br /> FROM Tom Larsen ax, <br /> DATE April 4, 1992 <br /> PROJECT Bogart Bailey Lane # 2695 <br /> SUBJECT TREE EVALUATION PROCESS <br /> We started the project with the usual project topo survey. Field information <br /> was processed normally and work was started on drawings. <br /> Based on the large number of trees that could be impacted by construction, we <br /> initially contacted Vic and asked what type of information he would need to <br /> assist us in dealing with trees. We prepared a marked up strip map with the <br /> first run of survey information for in house review. These maps had most of <br /> the existing topographical information including the raw survey tree <br /> information, i.e. a location, an estimated diameter, and deciduous /evergreen <br /> tree /shrub identifiers. <br /> We met with Public Works tree specialists, Jan Staszewski, Vic Martin, and Ken <br /> Doud and discussed the initial maps. The Engineering project team had <br /> identified a preliminary street alignment and indicated a willingness to <br /> revise the alignment or design in facilities to protect those trees which the <br /> Tree Specialists felt were important enough to warrant consideration. <br /> Discussion of alternatives included: <br /> weaving the street centerline to either side to avoid a particular tree <br /> or trees, <br /> narrowing the street by eliminating parking for short stretches, <br /> tree wells or protective structures, <br /> tree replacement or enhancement planting as part of the project, <br /> and /or meandering the sidewalk in back of trees at specific locations. <br /> Jan pointed out tree replacement is mandated in the Draft Urban Forest Plan <br /> (DUFP) when trees are removed. The Plan is only draft but consideration <br /> should be given to replacement trees. There was significant discussion of <br /> neighborhood planting plans and how they would be generated and approved. <br /> Consensus was reached there would be no overreaching neighbor planting plan <br /> affecting this project. Right of way will be tight on portions of the project <br /> and we agreed after much discussion that right of way would not be obtained <br /> solely to accommodate trees. <br /> Ken Doud made the point that compensation will include the value of all trees <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.