1. Call to Order and Roll Call. The Urban Forestry Council meeting convened at 4:07 p.m. Present: Chair Hillson, Members Buck, Hillan and Sutherland; Excused: Member Costello.
2. Approval of Minutes of the August 9, 2011 Urban Forestry Council Landmark Tree Committee Special Meeting (Explanatory Document: August 9, 2011 Draft Minutes) (Discussion and Action). Upon Motion by Member Hillan, second by Member Sutherland, the August 9, 2011 Meeting Minutes were approved without objection (AYES: Members Buck, Hillan, Hillson, and Sutherland; Absent: Member Costello).
3. Review of the past, existing and proposed 'Landmark Grove Language' in the Landmark Tree Ordinance. Committee Members will review and discuss the relevant sections of the Landmark Tree Ordinance. (Explanatory Documents: Article 16, Section 810 Landmark Tree Ordinance Proposed Amendments to Sections 802 and 810 and Proposed Landmark Grove Definition and Criteria) (Discussion and Possible Action)
Council Coordinator Hui announced that the Urban Forestry Council on June 28, 2011 voted to approve a Resolution (007-11-UFC) urging the Board of Supervisors to recognize the importance of groves of trees through adoption of the Urban Forestry Council’s Landmark Tree recommendations for amendments to Article 16, Sections 802 & 810 of the Public Works Code. The recommended amendments to code language have since been pending in order to secure funding for legal review. The explanatory documents reflect the revisions that the Council approved. Chair Hillson reported that the Landmark Tree Committee had met to identify these amendments to the code and nomination forms and evaluation criteria since September 2010.
Committee members discussed the City’s historic ability in 2005 to nominate groves and intent to reference language in use by the past Tree Advisory Board to consider incorporating into code amendments and forms. A discussion was held on Department of Public Works (DPW) Urban Forester Carla Short’s recommendations presented to the Council on the feasibility of landmarking groves of trees and alternate methods that would accomplish this goal through the current process (explanatory document attached). The Committee discussed the current requirement to review trees individually and the feasibility of doing so for trees that are part of a large grove.
Next steps to be discussed at the next meeting—Member Buck would hold a discussion with Urban Forester Short on how to develop Landmark Tree nomination forms in a way that would meet the needs of the City and DPW and depending on feedback, decide whether to amend nomination forms or move forward with proposed code amendments for review by the Deputy City Attorney.
4. Amendments to the Landmark Tree Nomination Form. Committee Members will discuss proposed amendments to the Landmark Tree Nomination Form and make recommendations to the full Council (Explanatory Documents: Landmark Tree Definition and Criteria and Draft Nomination Form) (Discussion and Possible Action). The Committee reviewed the current Landmark Tree Nomination form and compared the three versions proposed for amendment by Committee members. The Committee through consensus made amendments to the current form that will be finalized and scheduled for review and approval at the next Landmark Tree Committee meeting.
5. Landmark Tree Committee Meeting Time and Location. Committee Members will discuss scheduling future meetings (Discussion and Possible Action). The consensus of the Committee was to maintain the second Tuesday of the month at 4 p.m. on an ad hoc basis. There was no location change suggested.
6. New Business/Future Agenda Items. (Information and Discussion) The Committee discussed city trees that could potentially be eligible for landmark status. Member Buck provided an update on the status on the condition of the Moreton Bay Fig tree located near St. Luke’s Hospital and proposed construction work that may affect the tree. Member Hillan reported on past Landmark Tree Committee discussions on ideas for design, material and funding for marking landmark trees and suggested that the Committee continue to discuss this topic.
7. Public Comment: Members of the public may address the Committee on matters that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda. There were no members of the public present at this time.
8. Adjournment. The Landmark Tree Ad Hoc Committee meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
