01/31/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

two for one - but knew of no way to make logging beautiful. He said the present cutting operation had ceased as agreed, the only activity now going on was removal of down timber. Mr. Boyer mentioned previous logging in the Eugene area for developers who made a point of removing only trees necessary to provide a housing site. He also.called attention to a tree left aboue the 700-foot level in the course of cutting the Braatz property which should be considered dangerous and should be removed. He felt the ordinance if adopted should provide that liability not lie with the property owner in the event of damage from a tree deemed dangersou and which was not permitted to be removed. He expressed his feel- ing that absolute prohibition of tree cutting in the City would affect the economy in view of the logging industry in the area. He suggested employment of a qualified forester knowledgeable in growth of Douglas Fir merchantable timber if a permit system were to be delegated to the parks department authority. Mr. Boyer again cautioned that any tree cutting needs to be followed by replanting as the only means of preventing erosion and flooding and that should be a requirement of any permit system. . Other speaking in opposition to the ordinance were: Faye Stewart, Fox Hollow Road Ed Deardorff, 675 Loran Highway Randy Cuddeback, 1160 Lincoln Street Mike Poe, 1085 Patterson Street, Apt.4 Gale Roberts, Route 4, Box 44 Richard Hansen, 2744 Tomahawk Lane Carl Raynor, 2169 Stone Crest Drive Ann Haynes, 2293 Agate Street John Breeden, 4072 Normandy Way Ray Lindberg, 3110 Emerald Street Vern Gleaves, 2515 Highland Oaks Drive John Barber, 1280 Pearl Street Their objections were primarily directed toward proposed restriction on cutting of any type that would interfere with proper management of larger stands of timber. Mr. Stewart felt provisions of the ordinance should be more specific with regard to dimension of trees and that more notice of intent to. adopt this type of legislation should be given the general public. He thought adoption of the ordinance would have the effect of forcing owners of larger stands of timber to clear cut and burn. . Others felt restrictions to meet needs of the South Hills area should not be applied to the entire City, requiring permits for removal of single trees from individual properties. Mr. Cuddeback presented a petition signed by prop~rty owners protesting inclusion of re- strictions on cutting of individual trees on already developed properties. Council President Williams entered the meeting and assumed the Chair. Mr. Poe felt it unconstitutional to regulate landscaping operations. And Mr. Roberts stated consideration of this ordinance would determine how soon he would clear cut timber on property in his ownership near the City limits. Most of those opposing the legisla- tion believed the emergency situation was over and that there was no need for hasty action. Both foresters and housing developers spoke of the necessity for selective cutting under certain circumstances. Mr. Lindberg anticipated problems with location of houses in subdivision if tree preservation was to become the primary consideration rather than topography of the land. . Mr. Gleaves felt the City should acquire ownership of any park-type land on which trees were to be preserved rather than restricting the rights of every individual in the City to gain the required preservation. Neither did he feel any owner of private property should have development of his property dictated by neighbors or the parks department. He urged further study of the proposal, pointing out legal shortcomings. He said as it was now written there was no limit on the exercise of discretion by the parks director, and there seemed to be some disagreement on direction of the regulations - toward public or private concerns. Intent of specific control desired should be spelled out, he said. Also criteria on which permits would be issued should be written out. He added that appeal provision should be included, giving the Council the final authority, and only after finding that the general welfare of the citizens overrides that of the private prop- erty owner. Mr. Gleaves recited other specific rights of the individual which should be considered - time limit for consideration of cutting applications, appeals, listing of findings supporting any denials. He pointed out reference in the ordinance to Code section which did not exist and said more work was needed on the ordinance to delete that type of wording and to make it legally defensible. He also felt it important to have more specific cost figures for implementation of the permit program before it was adopted, and that a great deal more publicity regarding the proposal should be given to get reaction from the "man on the street" with regard to the anticipated results of the legiSlation. . Mr. Barber expressed concern about taking of property rights of the individual without due compensation to meet the problem of one area of the City. He said it would affect every piece of property in Eugene and hasty action should not be taken under those circumstances. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. 38 1/31/74 - 2