CC Minutes - 12/08/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson said she had been discouraged in reading the public comment about the ordinance. It was clear there were many technical procedural problems with the ordinance. She said the comments highlighted her concern, stated at the beginning of the process, that the ordinance was not being processed through a department advisory committee in the typical manner. Ms. Nathanson was disappointed by the statement in policy issue 5 that there was no scientific data quantifying the tree canopy in Eugene, making it difficult to establish targets for planting and preservation. She said that one of her issues was what the City's goals for the ordinance were; was it to increase the tree canopy, maintain it to the degree possible, or exchange certain species for other more appropriate in a densely developing urban environment? Ms. Nathanson said it would be useful to have a report on how many trees were removed in the city within a certain period of time and how many were replanted by developers and builders. She said that would help give her a sense of whether things were deteriorating or improving. Ms. Nathanson was also concerned about issues of erosion, runoff, and general soil stabilization issues. Ms. Nathanson said that in order to be comfortable with any stopgap measure, she needed to know the City was fixing the process. She believed some of the problems the City Council had seen in the past could be more related to process than regulations. Mr. Pap~ advocated for a broad-based public process to provide input into a new Tree Ordinance. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Andersen said that tree cutting permits would likely be issued through the Permit and Information Center (PIC). She said that it was logical that an FTE could be placed at the PIC to review plans and serve as the point of public contact for questions regarding the ordinance. Mr. Pap~ advocated that permits be issued through the PIC so that residents did not have to travel to Garfield Street. Ms. Andersen said that staff was seeking direction from the council on how much time processing the ordinance should take, and how much concern there was among councilors that the process be a speedy one. She reiterated that some stopgap measures could be instituted, which could somewhat alleviate concerns over the need for quick action, but a fundamental issue that must be addressed was the resource requirements associated with the program. She suggested that community disappointment about the program revolved around the lack of plans review, inspections, and follow-through, which was due to a lack of staff resources. Mr. Pap~ asked if the required funding would be proposed in the upcoming budget. Ms. Andersen said yes. Mr. Meisner said he also supported the approach taken in the draft ordinance. He did not believe the City needed to form a department advisory committee to review the ordinance because he thought the council had a general idea of the changes that might be needed. He pointed out that the council had received considerable advice and input about the ordinance. Mr. Meisner endorsed the purpose statement, saying it gave the council a sense of what the City was trying to accomplish. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m.