CC Minutes - 10/12/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

when the City would hire a new Urban Forester. Ms. Andersen said the City was in the processing of recruiting a new forester, and indicated she would be involved in the hiring process. She confirmed that the Urban Forester also managed parks trees. Ms. Taylor asked about the amount of influence Eugene had on EWEB tree-trimming policies. Ms. Andersen said Eugene had influence and had reached agreement on a policy with EWEB that resulted in several maintenance practice changes. Ms. Taylor asked what the City could do to prevent sequential logging of trees. She suggested instituting a waiting period of five years between development and additional tree removal, and establishing a minimum number of trees on a parcel. Mr. Medlin said the code was altered to ensure that there was a 12-month period between the removal of trees. Ms. Taylor indicated interest in such an ordinance. Ms. Taylor asked if developers could be precluded from cutting until they build. Ms. Andersen said that the code currently required a developer to submit a development plan if they proposed to remove more than ten trees. Mr. Medlin said that developers must have approved development plans to proceed with tree removal; timing of construction after approval was not codified. Ms. Taylor asked staff to identify gaps in tree protection. Ms. Andersen responded that the issue of heritage trees came to mind; other urban forestry programs addressing heritage trees that were surveyed by staff were focused on encouragement of private property owners to retain such trees. The City's program did not have the resources needed to support such a program, which required inventorying trees and doing outreach to those with heritage trees. She added that there were few programs that precluded a private property owner from removing a heritage tree. Ms. Taylor asked if staff agreed with a statement made by a candidate for the position of Urban Forester that the City's ordinances were contradictory and fragmented. Ms. Andersen said that given the fact the City's ordinances related to the Urban Forestry Program were located in several different pads of the code she would have to agree that there is not one section of code covering all tree ordinances. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Andersen for an update on the City's progress in reaching an interagency agreement with Lane County on tree removal between the city limits and urban growth boundary. Ms. Andersen said that Lane County had adopted the City's code for that area, and the City provided service in the area when requested. She added that the sunset provision for the ordinance's application in that area had been removed. Ms. Nathanson said that citizen contacts she had received indicated to her the planned unit development provisions related to tree removal did not work because the process relied in part on a description of what was to occur on the property by a developer. As individual lots were sold, property owners did further tree removal. She suggested that was a disconnect in the process that "needed fixing." Mr. Jacobson concurred with Ms. Nathanson's summary, adding that when lots were sold property owners sought additional tree removal, and the City required them to provide an arborist's statement the tree was unhealthy or was a safety hazard. He said that an arborist could show a tree was a safety hazard if the fall zone included a house. The City was obligated to honor the expertise of the arborist. Ms. Nathanson asked if the individual lot buyer could be held to the original development plan. Mr. Jacobson said that although there may be an approved development plan, it could be modified over time at the request of the property owner. He said that staff was learning it was difficult to ensure the retention of trees on the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 7 5:30 p.m.