Laserfiche WebLink
time, private property owners tended to plant trees, and the City tried to encourage people to do <br />so by offering advice on appropriate trees. She anticipated that the tree canopy would continue <br />to increase, and noted the positive impact of the NeighborWoods Program on the canopy. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that the type of trees that would last as street trees take some time to grow and <br />do not reach maturity quickly. Ms. Andersen concurred. Ms. Taylor stressed the nature of mixed <br />plantings to avoid loss to disease. Ms. Andersen agreed, adding that the City planted a variety of <br />different trees; there were approximately 75 species in the adopted list of recommended street <br />trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue believed the City needed to take a closer look at the PUD process as it related to tree <br />protection. Ms. Andersen said that staff would return to the council with a tree removal permitting <br />program as an alternative to the PUD process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor believed the City needed to "look at revising everything to do with trees," but <br />suggested that perhaps the Urban Forester needed to be involved in that process. Responding to <br />a request for clarification from Ms. Andersen, Ms. Taylor said that thought all the City's tree <br />policies should be placed in the same part of the code, and that the council should examine the <br />code for loopholes and contradictions. She wanted that process to occur before January 1999. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved that staff work toward revising the tree code by sometime <br /> early in 1999. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the time line suggested in the motion would allow the new Urban Forester to <br />be involved in the revisions. Ms. Andersen said no. She noted that differing regulations related <br />to trees were contained in different sections of the code, and that made it difficult for people to <br />merely pick up the code and find the regulations related to trees. Ms. Andersen suggested the <br />regulations could be compiled in a single document, but she continued to believe the PUD <br />process was another, separate issue. <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Andersen indicated staff had brochures and <br />handouts related to tree protection and removal, and she would make those available to the <br />councilors. Mr. Fart suggested that the array of regulations confused people, and it would be <br />useful to let them know what they could and could not do with the trees on their property in a few <br />shod paragraphs. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the City's erosion control ordinances were working well. Ms. Andersen <br />believed the City had gained ground in erosion control. She indicated that staff attempted to <br />gauge the impact of tree removal as well as other factors of development on erosion, but she did <br />not think the City had any evidence that tree removal as a separate issue was contributing to <br />more erosion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if a councilor could offer an ordinance for discussion. Mr. Farr said yes. <br /> <br />Ms. Andersen said staff would attempt to identity the issues related to tree removal and PUDs <br />and consider the best response to some of the issues regarding the lack of certainty created by <br />PUDs in terms of tree removal and protection. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 9 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />