New Search
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> To: LOWE Allen D <br /> Cc: HAMMITT Bob; PLAMONDON Scott F; JACOBSON Jerry P; CHILDS Jan W; <br /> NYSTROM Steven A; MILLER Marsha A <br /> Subject: Urban Forestry Section Involvement with Land Use and Building Permit Activities <br /> Date: Thursday, April 10, 1997 9:25AM <br /> Hi Allen, <br /> I'm going to have to ask you to not specify the Urban Forester as the responsible person in any of the <br /> Chapter 9 language. We would be happy to provide some help in determining if a tree qualifies as a <br /> heritage tree, but that is about the limit to which I feel we can commit. <br /> The current City Manager reduction recommendation before Council (in all options) totally deletes the <br /> Urban Forestry Section from involvement in Tree issues on private property. This would include any <br /> referral responses to Planning on Land Use issues and any enforcement of Tree Preservation Code 6.330. <br /> The Urban Forestry Section would be restricted to dealing only with issues which involve City trees on <br /> streets and in park lands. <br /> While I hate to see tree issues on private property going unaddressed I'm in favor of this position because <br /> the current processes regarding tree issues with private development are working poorly in any case. <br /> Review and Enforcement staffing are inadequate to get results. Staff spends considerable time performing <br /> reviews and establishing conditions involving trees which then get lost later in the process. Proposals to <br /> address this concern are not of a sufficiently high priority to receive attention and funding in this tight <br /> budget climate. If we have to cut something, I guess cutting something that isn't working well anyway <br /> makes quite a bit of sense. Without re- engineering how the City looks at tree issues on private lands, and <br /> the provision of some additional review and enforcement staffing somewhere within the city organization <br /> this will remain true even if BM #47 is overturned. <br /> Without a resource I can't in good conscience agree we can provide this service. <br /> Sorry, <br /> Johnny <br /> From: LOWE Allen D <br /> To: PLAMONDON Scott F; MCKERROW Mike J <br /> Subject: New Code - Preservation of Existing Vegetation <br /> Date: Monday, April 07, 1997 2:18PM <br /> I asked Steve Nystrom if I should bring this to the Tree Team and he advised me to deal directly with you <br /> two. Attached is the proposed Landscaping Chapter for Chapter 9. It has a section on "Preservation of <br /> Existing Vegetation" which is essentially what we worked out and Countil adopted four years ago. I <br /> worked the chapter over with Kevin Finney this morning and he said there might be problems with the <br /> requirement (9.3.304 - (C) with stating that the "Building and Permit Services Manager" is the one who <br /> should make the significant vegetation determination, and that BPSM is the one to whom a "tree <br /> preservation plan for mitigative actions to preserve the tree" should be permitted. <br /> I HOPE this doesn't require the three of us to meet - I HOPE its really a simple question I'm asking. <br /> Assume we leave the code alone except for specifying somebody other than Building and Permit Services <br /> Manger to make the determination and receive the mitigation plan - is it safe to just say that Urban Forester <br /> is person who does both ? ?? <br /> Please look at sections 9.3.304(C) (1), (2), and (3) and let me know what you think. Please cc each other <br /> too, so we all know what we each think. If there is a difference of opinion, I'll get back to you.. Thanks. <br /> alien <br /> < <File Attachment: LANDSCAP.DOC> > <br /> Page 1 <br />