04/15/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e e Ms. Schue, Mr. Lindberg, and Ms. Wooten expressed their support of the project. Ms. Wooten asked for the employment figures for the next public hearing. Mr. Obie said the City's credibility was put on the line with such an application. He asked to see who was the owner of the Red Barn in the last five years, any change in ownership, and any ownership directly related to NEDCO or the Whitea- ker neighborhood. He also wanted to know from a contracting standpoint, the work that is to be done, in order to analyze the relationship, so that it is public knowledge. He asked for an independent opinion on the financial feasi- bility of the project, possibly from someone in the development business who is non-competitive and non-participatory. He looked forward to receiving that information next week. Ms. Hofmann said that she could provide a market study at the next hearing. Mr. Lindberg felt that the best judgment would be whether the banks liked the project. He would not object to looking at the project. He asked staff for guidelines for hiring CETA-eligible workers as opposed to union employees, along with any relevant information. Ms. Hofmann said NEDCO had to prepare the information, contracting procedures (especially regarding local laws) as well as the participation of minority contractors on such projects, as part of the application. It would be made available next week. B. Consideration of Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance (memo, ordi- nance distributed) Manager introduced Mr. Drapela, Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Drapela explained that a few but significant violations of the tree preservation code had brought this item to the City's attention. While Eugene has a good pro- gram, it should be improved if it is to be truly successful. There have been enforcement complications due to vague language. It is the view of staff that the penalties should be stiffened for the few flagrant violators. This has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and the City Prosecutor's Office and they have identified some proposed changes. Mr. Drapela explained the proposed changes. In the penalty section the maximum fine would be $500 or 25 percent of the appraised value of all trees removed. Mr. Drapela explained that this section is designed to deal with the exceptions but it is important to make the penalties stiffer than they have been in the past. Ms. Schue asked if developers could remove trees on undeveloped land. Mr. Drapela explained when there is a vacant lot under 2,500 square feet, one cannot remove the trees. Mr. Haws questioned the use of a minimum fine, which leaves no leeway for the judge. Mr. Drapela noted that this ordinance sets a minimum and a maximum. Time Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that in some situations it becomes cost-effective to take the trees off the property if the fine is small. It was felt that there was a need to have a substantial fine to deter small-scale cutting. Mr. Haws wondered if there was another way to increase the penalties without putting a minimum fine in the ordinance. Mr. Sercombe explained a person might harvest 400 trees, realizing that the fine could be $100. It was designed to be a deterrent. Ms. Miller wondered if the ordinance should provide a minimum fine related to the appraisal value of the timber removed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 7