Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e Ron Cameron, 2052 Potter Street, said he was Mr. McCarthy's business partner. <br /> He supported the proposed ordinance as a tool to help utilize sites in a <br /> responsible manner that will protect the quality of life in Eugene. <br /> Dennis Lueck, 360 Owosso Drive, spoke as an urban forester. He particularly <br /> supported the inclusion of criteria in the ordinance that address subtle <br /> damage to trees. Mr. Lueck pointed out that during the construction process, <br /> it is important to protect trees that are to be saved with barriers and <br /> fencing. <br /> Gregory Ahlijian, 42083 Deerhorn Road, Springfield, identified himself as <br /> chairperson of the Tree Commission which recommended passage of a new tree <br /> ordinance. Voicing his personal opinions, Mr. Ahlijian expressed <br /> disappointment that the Lane County Planning Commission had not considered <br /> the revisions submitted by the Tree Commission and said that the County <br /> should address the issue in the Santa Clara area. As a practicing arborist, <br /> Mr. Ahlijian said that any tree ordinance would impose regulations on his <br /> business, yet he supported the community benefit provided by the proposed <br /> ordinance. <br /> Michael Sobol, 3962 Spring Boulevard, spoke about the disposal of logging <br /> debris after trees have been cut. He urged strict prohibition of slash <br /> burning within the UGB and requested that time limits be set for prompt, <br /> proper disposal of such debris. Mr. Sobol objected to Section 9.188 (a)(4) <br /> of the proposed ordinance and said that regulation of slash disposal should <br /> not be left to the State Department of Forestry. <br /> - Talbot Bielefeldt, 1732 East 43rd Avenue, considered the proposed ordinance a <br /> well-crafted compromise that will help ensure Eugene's continuing livability, <br /> and he supported it. <br /> Jenny Sirnio, 95 Bradford Court, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Planning <br /> Commission. She supported the separation of urban from urbanizing areas to <br /> facilitate adoption of the ordinance by the December 1 deadline. She <br /> suggested that a process similar to that used in the modification of the <br /> solar access ordinance be employed in drafting an urban tree ordinance, in <br /> order to encourage participation by all interested groups. The draft <br /> ordinance before the council contains revisions agreed upon by the planning <br /> commissions, but Ms. Sirnio emphasized that the Eugene Planning Commission <br /> continues to endorse the language proposed by the Tree Commission. Ms. <br /> Sirnio pointed out that all items listed under IIgeneral guidelines" were <br /> listed under Section 9.188 prior to the joint planning commission workshop. <br /> Both commissions supported a mandatory review of the ordinance in two years. <br /> Allan Sorenson, 3174 Ivy Glen Drive, requested that two letters he recently <br /> submitted to the Planning Commission be considered part of the record of the <br /> public hearing. He said that letters, dated August 22 and September 19, <br /> cited several cases of tree removal that would not have been allowed if the <br /> proposed ordinance had been in effect. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 3 <br />