CC Minutes - 08/09/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor agreed that a DAC was unnecessary. She supported stiffer penalties and more protection for street trees. She expressed concern about the current provision allowing five trees to be cut per year, saying it amounted to allowing "sequential logging." Ms. Andersen said staff brought back the entire program because it encompasses the whole set of tree ordinances. She asked the council to clarify the issues of concern. She indicated that staff had included the foundation's proposals within the private property program; however, its focus was on adjustment of the existing code and refinement of language without describing outcomes or gaps. Ms. Andersen expressed concern that if the council was overly concerned with the process, staff may find it difficult to know if they are "hitting the mark" with what the council wishes to achieve with the program. Mr. Kelly said it was impossible to have a broad discussion of goals for the urban forest in 20 minutes, suggesting that the council use the foundation's recommendations as a starting point to discuss goals. He identified the absence of any reference to planned unit developments in the tree ordinance as a gap. Ms. Nathanson said the packet information was helpful but the foundation's recommendations were strategies and not goals; and there might be other strategies. She agreed that there needed to be a broader discussion about goals, noting that the Forest Management Plan did not identify any. She said it was difficult to answer Mr. Snyder's question at the end of the presentation without knowing what the desired outcomes are. Ms. Nathanson supported using a DAC to facilitate the council's discussion. Mr. Lee wondered why some opposed a DAC. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that a DAC would delay any action and implementation of the ordinance. Ms. Nathanson said would address the time line rather than eliminate the public process. Ms. Andersen said it may be possible to shorten the time line if the DAC was given a clear direction. She identified private land/tree preservation issues as the council's focus, with heritage trees also being important. Mr. Lee described the presentation as "excellent." He agreed that the council needed to talk about desired outcomes and drew the correlation between outcomes and quantification. Ms. Andersen said the council may wish to describe its focus geographically, e.g., Bethel development, south hills, etc. Other focus areas might be preservation, long-term health and sustainability. Once a focus was identified, she said, staff could develop outcomes tied to those areas for the council's review. Ms. Anderson said the discussion revealed that penalties and tree removal were issues for some. Mr. Meisner agreed that the council needed to identify the outcomes it wished. He said he was not in favor of delegating that responsibility to a DAC and there was insufficient time for the council to make a decision this evening without a more comprehensive discussion. Mr. Meisner criticized the Forest Management Plan for its lack of goals and a history of the area. Mr. Pap8 commended staff for the packet material and the presentation. He said that if the foundation's second recommendation was adopted, it would require moving the jurisdiction of trees from the Public Works Department to the Planning and Development Department. He asked staff to address fruit trees in the plan (encourage them). Mr. Pap8 noted that trees may be Minutes--Eugene City Council August 9, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m.