02/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilaman Williams asked for examples of tree cutting which would not have been : permitted under the proposed ordinance. Councilman Murray said the purpose of I the ordinance was to prohibit indiscriminate cutting of trees not necessary to be i cut for any constructive use, and to give the opportunity to save trees on private i property which might be removed because they were thought to be diseased or dying. , Checking with knowledgeable City people could result in saving trees under those circumstances. Parks Director explained that the permit requirement would give the opportunity to offer consulting advice, perhaps shortstop "fly-by-night" tree removal merchants ~tying erronerous advice, afford an opportunity to remove . some trees that are safla1:.Y hazards, replace trees which had to be removed, etc. . He cited instances of tr~nsplanting unwanted trees as a gift from private prop- erty to parks property, replacing them with trees aesirable to the property owner. ; He felt the permit system would offer more opportunities of that nature. -- I I 1 . Charles Dallas, president of the Spencers .Butte Improvement Association, aske4 whether this ordinance if adopted would be considered the solution or if supple-' .mental legislation would be considered. Councilman_wood answered that .the sub- committee would address other concerns - residential building sites and subdivi- sions, other types of vegetation mentioned in the SoutQ Hills study, etc. This was not considered the final solution with regard to trees in the entire City, he said~ Fred "Tex" Braatz, responsible for the logging in the South Hills area prompting Council consideration of the tree cutting regulations, asked where liability for damage would lie in the event a permi.t is refused to remove a tree from private ,property which the owner has deemed dangerous. He added that specifications should be spelled out in the ordinance and said he thought citizens would be limi ted in their desires to the likes and dfsl~k~~ of the .l!~r~~ dep'a::trr;en~. City Attorney answered that the City would not incur liability. Issuance of permits under the regulations was clearly the exercise of a discretionary function. -- In answer to Mr. Dallas, Councilman Wood said the regulationS would not restrict nor control the pruning or trimming of shrubs or trees. City Attorney, in answer , to Fred Webb of KUGN, said there was no requirement that trees be cut to ground ; 1 evel when removed. : Marvin Boyer, logger who removed the trees for Mr. Braatz, said that many of the i trees in the South Hills area were mature, should be removed, and were at their : prime market value. He noted one tree was left above the 700-foot level (re- Istricted level set by South Hills study) when the cutting was stopped and felt it ; constituted a hazard to adjoining property. He thought those types of concerns , should be considered in any tree cutting regulations. Councilman Wood answered . that the limitations would not extend to trees considered a safety hazard nor . WOuld they prevent cutting trees for economic benefit to a property owner; the . permit system would allow the City to exercise discretionary judgment. . . Vernon Gleaves, 2515 Highland Oaks Drive, suggested delay in adopting the ordinance to provide opportunity for. further study. He questioned provisions in the ordi- .nance which would require decision from the parks department for removal of trees . from private property, saying that placed too great a restriction on the rights of the property owner. He said the private property owner would not be relieved (Of liability if a tree damaged adjoining property after a permit had been refused. tHe urged further study and refinement of the ordinance before it was adopted. In answer to Mr. Dallas, Manager explained that the $40,000 cost was that esti- mated to enforce the ordinance; actual amount would depend upon the quantity of .activity generated which would govern the amount of necessary labor, materials, 'bookkeeping, etc. Further questions concerned legal ramifications if permits were denied for management of timber stands on larger tracts of property. Also whether potential damage to other properties from removal of trees - either the view or from soil erosion - would provide a basis for denial of cutting perm~ts. City Attorney explained that there is no tort liability where a government agency or employe performing a discretionary function makes an error in judgment. He said relevant factors would be considered in issuing any cutting permit. -~ /~~ . Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to adopt the ordinance and call a special meeting of the Council after this meeting to enact it. Councilman Hershner was concerned that the general thrust of the regulations did :not give adequate recognition to rights of private property owners and was sub- 'stituting the judgment of a City staff member for that of the private property owner. He felt in meeting the rec~nt problem of clear cutting in the South Hi11s 43 2/11/74 - 4 "-;- .