Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Andersen reviewed the Planning Commission's suggestions for possible stopgap measures: <br />1) provide additional staff resources to more fully implement the existing code, including involving <br />Urban Forestry staff in limited development proposal reviews that involved trees, at a cost of <br />between $75,000 and $100,000; 2) administrative rule changes that would help to clarify the <br />existing code definitions and address gaps that have been found in the existing code; and 3) <br />increase the fines for illegal tree removal. <br />Ms. Andersen said that the fourth policy issue involved the cost of implementing the draft <br />ordinance over the long-term, which would require two to three FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) at a <br />cost of $200,000 to $275,000. The fifth policy issue regarded the need for better baseline data <br />and identification of targets and goals for the urban forest canopy. Ms. Andersen described a <br />program called CITYgreen, which assists municipalities in measuring the existing tree canopy in a <br />community and projects how ordinance changes that are implemented have various effects over <br />time. The program also projects the environmental benefits associated with the canopy. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey asked the council for comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commended staff for what he termed a good first draft. He said it moved the City toward <br />an ordinance comparable to those in other Northwest cities. He liked the clear purpose statement <br />and its preservation/replacement/protection/enforcement approach. <br /> <br />Regarding the land use issue, Mr. Kelly urged the council to move expeditiously and avoid <br />establishing a new advisory committee to provide input into the ordinance. He believed that the <br />commission/council process was sufficient. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated appreciation for the quality of much of the public input and urged staff to <br />examine the input thoroughly. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked what happened between the land use and development processes. He did not <br />see anything in the code that bound the builder or purchaser of a lot in a subdivision to the <br />provisions instituted in the land use process. He also questioned how the City would address tree <br />preservation on subdivisions created 20 years ago that were now being developed. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the applicability of the ordinance to public <br />properties, Ms. Andersen said that it was staff's expectation that the ordinance would apply to City <br />property. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if the council could adopt a stop gap measure integrating the planned unit <br />development (PUD) into the current tree ordinance. Planning Director Jan Childs said no. Mr. <br />Rayor said that he had received input that if the City defined the critical root zone as a certain <br />diameter radius, it should make some allowance for driveways. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor expressed interest in seeing the ordinances related to key waterways, erosion control <br />measures, and tree preservation being adopted on the same time line. He believed that citizens <br />generally were unaware that the City was working on three ordinances that had an impact on <br />private property but were not otherwise linked. He suggested a matrix could be used to track the <br />different ordinances. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1999 Page 8 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />