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: Christine Andersen <br /> From: Bob Hammitt <br /> Subject: Urban Forestry Service Profile <br /> Date: May 23, 1996 <br /> Attached is an Urban Forestry service profile process proposal developed by Roland Hoskins and <br /> Marge Boutell. <br /> We have determined that the core group, which should attend all of the meetings, will consist of <br /> six staff (Johnny Medlin, Scott Plamondon, Mike Bellmore, Dick Morgan, Adrian Stansfield, <br /> John Luther). Johnny Medlin will act as the service lead. In addition, John Etter, Louie Kroeck, <br /> a Planning Division representative, and a Building Division representative will need some level <br /> of participation in the meetings and process. <br /> A summary of staff response (excluding process staff) would be as follows: <br /> Staff Hours Number of Staff Total Hours <br /> Core Group Meeting Time 24 6 144 <br /> Staff Meeting Time 8 4 32 <br /> Staff Preparation (2 hrs of preparation estimated for every hour of meeting time) 352 <br /> Service Lead Work 40 1 40 <br /> Total 568 Hours <br /> We are committed to proceeding with the service profile process as outlined. I think it is <br /> important to understand that it will cause some impacts to workload and service delivery systems <br /> as described below: <br /> 1. We are currently running a back log of approximately 30 Planning Division referrals <br /> (PUD, site review, and land partitions), which planners have asked us to comment <br /> regarding tree issues and impacts. We are already late on these, and our back log has <br /> continued to increase over the past few months due to the incredible amount of <br /> development activity occurring. Development approvals are often issued prior to the <br /> Urban Forester being able to review and comment. <br /> One of the justifications we have been using for not doing everything the tree <br /> preservation code indicates should be done in individual building permit review, is that <br /> we are performing tree issues review at the earlier land development stages where we <br /> hopefully have a greater impact in the process. <br /> Proceeding with the service profile will likely mean that we fall further behind in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.