CC Minutes - 04/06/98 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the proposed amendment did not provide for adequate enforcement, that private contractors would have conflicts of interest in their roles in proposed enforcement procedures, and that revenue could be found to strengthen the ordinance. Gregory Ahlijian, 42083 Deerhorn Road, Springfield, stated that he was a member of the former Eugene Tree Commission. He said he supported testimony that had been presented. Gary E. Rayor, 2373 Washington Street, stated that he was opposed to changing the Tree Preservation Ordinance. He said he was concerned that the changes were being driven by lack of revenue. He suggested that reductions in tree preservation were the same as reducing wastewater disposal/air pollution quality management. He said he believed the cost to the City of litigation created by the proposed amendments would be higher than that required for enforcement of the ordinance. Paul Prensky, 933 East 29th Avenue, stated that he believed the cost of police enforcement during a June 1, 1997, tree cutting demonstration would have been ample to provide for partial enforcement of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. He reported that he had heard a rumor that Nike was planning to locate a manufacturing plant in Eugene and remove a large number of trees. He said he did not believe private certified arborists or landscape architects should be involved in enforcement of a City ordinance as included in amendment proposals. Mayor Torrey determined there were no other persons present wishing to testify regarding the proposed amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance and closed the public hearing. He announced the council would deliberate and made a decision about the proposed amendments during its meeting scheduled on April 13. Ms. Nathanson asked if a department advisory committee had participated in the preparation of the proposed amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Ms. Andersen replied that no committee had been involved in development of the proposals, but that it had been motivated by the need to meet the revenue reduction strategy approved by the council and a desire to continue the goals of the Urban Forester program. She said alternate recommendations from the council were welcome. Ms. Nathanson asked why it was being proposed that certified arborists and landscape architects be required to provide certification that tree felling is appropriate. Ms. Andersen said that the occupations were the only ones proficient in related fields with certification processes. Ms. Nathanson asked what recourse was provided for the City or citizens if bad judgments were given by arborists or landscape architects. Ms. Andersen stated that censure would be difficult because it would require professional testimony and egregious negative intent would have to be proven. Ms. Swanson Gribskov asked if proposed amendments of the Tree Preservation Ordinance affected details of Planned Unit Development (PUD) planning processes. Ms. Andersen replied that they did not since PUD processes integrated tree and development management and provided independent enforcement mechanisms. Minutes--Eugene City Council April 6, 1998 Page 5 7:30 p.m.