Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 6 and Chapter 9. He stressed that the vast majority of permit activity, with the revisions <br />in place, would be changed from Chapter 6 to Chapter 9. He also said that the Chapter 6 right- <br />of-way and public land exemptions would no longer apply. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs referred to proposed motions from the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the first motion was clerical but important to the main tree section of Section <br />9.6885. He said that the term "tree preservation" did not have a specific definition. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> change the code to define the term "tree preservation" to clarify that trees <br /> identified to be preserved shall include measures to sustain the health and <br /> integrity of the tree. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding whether the language of the motion meant <br />trees in the public right-of-way only or trees on private property as well, Mr. Kelly said that he was <br />thinking of it only in context of Chapter 9 of the code. He said that it would apply any time the <br />term "tree preservation" was used. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that there would be a definition within Chapter 9 of the code that would clarify <br />the term when it was used in a land use application review. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr raised a concern over the number of motions laid on the table by one councilor for the <br />meeting. He believed that the process needed to move faster and that the council was holding <br />extra meetings to accommodate a relatively small number of councilors. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson raised a concern that when the council started discussing motions that had <br />already been prepared, she would never get to ask questions or comment generally on the item <br />because that section of code had not been discussed yet. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that every councilor had the right to be recognized and present their positions <br />on issues and urged them to do so even though the process would be slowed down. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly, in response to Mr. Farr, said that all the motions he was raising were in response to the <br />testimony he had heard at the hearing in May. He invited all councilors to make whatever <br />motions they felt strongly about. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the City Code to change the allowed number of trees to be removed <br /> on a large lot within a 12-month period from five per year to three per year. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he intended the motion to apply to both chapters 6 and 9 of the Eugene Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor was against the motion. He said that he did not see the rationale behind it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She said that the maximum number that could be removed <br />had been three per year until the revised draft was released, and she supported going back to <br />three per year. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />