CC Minutes - 12/12/05 Work Session

Home Browse Search

At the request of Mr. Papé, Ms. Cahill pointed out the area that would be affected if the amendment to the motion passed. She said the commercial businesses on the east end were being squeezed by the Beltline and used every available inch of space as they redeveloped. Ms. Ortiz supported the amendment to the motion and asked for council support. She acknowledged that the recommendations enjoyed the support of a majority of the stakeholders but thought the councilors as decision-makers were responsible for maintaining the character of the street. Ms. Ortiz said she thought streets without trees were ugly. She determined from Ms. Cahill that funding for the City’s share of the project would come from transportation systems development charges (SDCs) rather than the General Fund. Mr. Pryor said he wanted to plant trees in most cases but suggested that in this case it might not be feasible. He agreed that the City should provide some incentive to make it more attractive for property owners to plant trees. He did not want to require it in this instance but would support whatever incentives could be created for increased tree planting. Mayor Piercy said if Mr. Kelly’s motion failed, she hoped the property owners would work with the City to plant trees. She said that trees were important to the community. Mr. Kelly asked if the ACSP provided for exceptions to street tree planting if physical constraints existed. Ms. Cahill said yes. Mr. Kelly pointed out to Mr. Pryor that the City would not require trees if they were physically impossible to install. Nothing in the amendment limited the existing exception to the ACSP. He emphasized that the intent of his amendment was to maintain the standard City street tree policy. City Manager Taylor suggested that Mr. Kelly could clarify his intent by adding the “in accordance with the ACSP” after the word “included” to recognize the deviation from the plan. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. Mr. Schoening said the original design met the standards in the ACSP and included trees along the section of the road in question, so staff believed it was somewhat disingenuous to employ an exception in the alternative plan that was not needed in the first plan. Mr. Kelly said every street was unique, which was the reason for the exceptions in the ACSP. However, he did not know the street in question was so unique that it could not accommodate street trees. Regarding the issue of business visibility, Mr. Kelly said that was an issue all over the city and that it was one an arborist could easily address. At the request of Mr. Papé, Ms. Cahill reviewed the six exceptions in the ACSP. Mr. Papé continued to be concerned about the issue of business visibility as a result of trees. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes. Ms. Taylor moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with final design and bidding of an improvement project for River Avenue in accordance with Plan A described in the Minority Report submitted by representatives of the River Road Community Organization. The motion died for lack of a second. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 6 Work Session