CC Minutes - 10/12/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

periphery of the property if those trees were Douglas firs, because they did not survive the development process. Douglas firs belong in a forest setting rather than a residential setting. Mr. Jacobson said that staff was attempting to preserve large stands and allow more tree removal in areas with less significant trees. He noted the impacts created by a site's topography on tree removal and the conflict that created with the proposed density on a site. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to put some thought into how the planned unit development process worked, and what value there was to having a tree removal and preservation plan if it could not be enforced. She said she wished to be fair to those who wished to buy lots and develop them as appropriate while being sympathetic to neighbors who thought something was to be retained and then it was removed. She also expressed concern about the danger created by the retention of large trees such as the Douglas firs discussed by Mr. Jacobson, and said the City must allow for tree removal when there is a hazard. Ms. Swanson Gribskov pointed out the City had several planning documents that reflecting the community's concerns about trees, and much good work was occurring to protect City trees. She thought the issue was one of adequacy of resources. Ms. Swanson Gribskov raised a related issue, saying that the most frequent tree issue brought to her attention by constituents was that of tree roots breaking up sidewalks. Constituents wanted to remove trees because of their impact on sidewalks and yards. She suggested the council examine who was responsible for repairing sidewalks, and how many times an individual could be responsible for those repairs when the damage was caused by a tree they had not planted and could not remove. Ms. Andersen indicated a work session on sidewalks was scheduled for November 23, and the issue raised by Ms. Swanson Gribskov would be addressed at that time. Mr. Farr agreed the community cared about trees and each tree provided a community and global benefit. He believed, however, that the community often lost track of the fact trees grow quite well in Eugene. His own property contained many trees that had matured considerably since they were planted 15 years previously to replace those removed during the development process. Mr. Farr pointed out that tree removal did not mean more trees would not grow on a property. He said that developers do plant trees, and although he acknowledged small replacement trees might not immediately provide a benefit, they had a long-term benefit for future generations. Mr. Farr pointed out that as the City added development regulations, it raised the cost of a single- family house. He said that the cost of housing in Eugene was among the highest in the nation and climbing at an alarming rate, and families were unable to afford what housing that existed. He encouraged the council to do what it could to maintain affordable housing in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Andersen if Eugene had a policy that unsafe trees be replaced with safe trees. Ms. Andersen said yes. She noted a related issue in the City's planned unit development modification (PUD) request process; when staff reviewed the request, it would consider the replacement of trees to be removed as well as requests for additional removal. The process did not address the fact that nearby residents were no longer living next to mature trees when development occurred. Ms. Nathanson asked if there was a way to demonstrate that the City was experiencing a net gain of trees on both private and public land. Ms. Andersen clarified that in private, developing areas, particularly in wooded areas, there was likely a net loss because of the loss of land to buildings. However, the street tree planting program was more than recouping that loss. Over MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 8 5:30 p.m.