CC Minutes - 03/02/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

professionals certify that development plans meet the requirements under the code. Staff would review the application for completeness and appropriate level of certification, and administer the program "across the counter." She explained that private individuals would not have an opportunity to protest the issuance of the permit; however, they could protest if more trees were removed than permitted or if tree removals occurred without a permit. Ms. Andersen asked the council to reaffirm its previous direction and approve of the proposed approach. Staff will then conduct a public involvement process with interested parties. Ms. Andersen said that if there was interest in the council for expanding private property tree protection, it should be clarified as that will likely be an issue at the public hearing. Ms. Taylor said she favored the existing code over the proposed one. Ms. Nathanson said people will continue to call the City and wondered if ample time had been allowed to response to those questions. Ms. Andersen said material with very specific information will be developed for public consumption and will outline the process. Ms. Nathanson asked the council should be prepared to address the issue of hazardous trees. She asked what recourse the City had if a "credentialed" professional was approving things that demonstrated a lack of understanding or sensitivity for the rules. Ms. Andersen explained that licensing provided a mechanism for monitoring professionals. In this case, the City would have to rely on the professional societies and licensing organizations as the mechanism for enforcement. Ms. Nathanson said she would be more inclined to approve the proposed ordinance if the City communicated with these professional organizations and explained its intent to rely on their credentialing and oversight activities. Mr. Meisner expressed support for the piece on undeveloped properties under 20,000 square feet. He said he did not share Ms. Nathanson's concern about professionals in the field. In response to concern that the ordinance called for injunctive relief and not punitive damages, Mr. Lide said fines could not be imposed because a private individual did not incur damages and could not initiate a civil penalty process for the City. Addressing a concern about deterrent from Mr. Meisner, staff referred to Section 6.990, which allowed for City prosecution for violation but there would not be a staff resource to carry that out. Mr. Meisner reiterated his concern about the lack of a deterrent and encouraged the City Manager to get involved in enforcement. Mr. Lee said he was interested in proceeding with the public hearing and supported Ms. Nathanson's suggestion for working closely with professional associations and licensing bodies. Addressing a question from Mr. Laue, Mr. Medlin said there was one complaint in the last two years that was substantiated and resulted in a penalty. Ms. Nathanson said she expected to hear during the public hearing that the existing code did not work very well, adding that staff should be prepared to address erosion control as well. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, staff said the public hearing was scheduled for April 6, followed by council action scheduled for April 13. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that few private individuals had resources sufficient to bring causes of action. Addressing a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Andersen said at least 50 percent of communities in the northwest our size have such ordinances, but the City of Salem does not. Staff will provide that MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 2, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m.