Laserfiche WebLink
<br />County was looking ut the pro;,; and cons of t.he M.etro Phm.Mayor Piercy acknowledged that '[Vbyor <br />Leiken did an opinion piece whne he m~~nti()Hed the iSi',ue. <br />Ms, tvtui.r clarified the motion. Staffundt:rstood that if the motion passed, it would indude the change to <br />adc.pt the motion on opportrm:ity siting and the MUC h.igh priorities, <br />MfL'raylOf, seconded by Ms. Bettrnan, rnoved to am.end the motion to moy-c Item 43, <br />which is the remand a.n.d used to be at the. top of the lii;t, to the number 5 posit.ion, and <br />move everything else down. <br />tvlL Kelly sairlithad been a hnkst.anding concern of his that what COW1CU said. was a high priority often <br />'''drifted awav:'Havlnu said th~lt, there was. \:::mTentlv s.o much on the high-prior:itv list that he ecould not <br />......... ... ,I <br />:>l..lpport the rm>tion, in spite of the bct that therc had noth{:en ~lny progress on those important i~.;sues, <br />Me Pape wncurred with ML Kel1y. <br />tvh BeHman said :..;he consistently heard over the years from constituents that this W.1S anirnportant issue <br />hsuesimportant to the community, such as the pfot~:ction ofherit.<lge tr<xs and the loss of that canopy, <br />~>{en:; more important to the cormnunity than Hl0:..;t ofthe UJCU is::;ues that have heen proees~~ed by the <br />Planning (;ornmi.ssi.on. and City Council. <br />.Mr. KeUy asked City .Manager 'fayk>r to have Public Wor:h ;;md Planning return with a proposal to <br />address {JHly the tree ordinance i~:..;ue to take advantage of the good \vf)-l"k done on the tree ordinanee In <br />200(t <br />City Manager Dermis Taylor s~lid it would be relatively easy to ptit that together and bring the ii',:..;ue back <br />to the City Council in a narrower scnse than is envisioM:d in the PUD draft \vGrk program, <br />Ms. Taybr concurred with M::;. DeHman that there wa~ nothing more important to the C{.lmnlunity than <br />protecting its trees and cvery week that did not ha:pp(~n, Eugene lost more tre(~s, <br />Mr, Pape :..;aid he did not want to imply tD the puhlic that Eugene did not have tree protections, lk <br />betieved tlK~ City's curre.m histork tre.e presecv--.ation was not regulated properly, <br />City Attl>mey Gk:nn Klein s;;lid the reg:.:daHons that were in phct.now on trte~, were the same ones. Hwt <br />were in place prior to thc rcrnand. Cutti.ng trces n.~qu.ired per:mlts u.nder eertain circu!:nstances depending <br />upon whether the property was developed or not developed, They also required permits dependi.ng on the <br />number oftrce$ to he (:ut, Permit applications go to t.hc IJrban .Forester, so thew were protc,..--:tion.s that <br />were currently in phtce. The protections that would have heen ill place had the tree ordi.nance not been <br />remanded wert) improv--cments over \vhat was in pia,)e today, <br />Mr, Pape s.aid the Euge.ne Tre.e Foundation was working nn .historie tree designatkms .and asked If there <br />were any regulation::; around hi~toric tree~. Mr, Klein i;airl he w.a~.; not aware of any.. hut there were <br />provisions in the eharter that n;-latcd to some very old trees within celt.ain rights~of.way. <br />Mr. PapC ~aid m~my historic tn)c:,; werc in the public domain, and he appreciated that they W{;1'C not <br />dh~turh(:d. AdditlDnally, there was puhlie int'om1ati.on provided by t.he Urhan Forester prior to any of those <br />tree~ being i:;u.t dD\llH. <br />AllNl.JTES------ Eugene City Coundl JuIy 27, 2n05 Paot: 9 <br /> (:> <br />Work Session <br />