New Search
06/24/93 15:31 $503 341 5894 EUGENE CITY HALL -+-+.+ EUGENE PW MAINT. li6003 <br /> rrom : Land Planning Conau1tanta r!or4C Ha. 74G512G Sum 24 10J3 11:4OAn P03 <br /> LPPRLL1,1,A APPEAL STATRWRXT <br /> The June 23, 1993 denial far tree removal stated. that Eugene cod. <br /> 6.320 does not authorise the removal of healthy Douglas filer <br /> traaa. The appellant believer this decision to be in error for <br /> the following teasono: <br /> 1. This would ha a t,AW And +substantially different interpretation <br /> of the Cede. The City hes authorized the removal of healthy <br /> Douala* fir trace with prior permits under the came Codo <br /> provision. <br /> 0. e!orl s Seetien 6.320 are not standard* to determine whether <br /> troop can be removed. Rather, they and criteria to evaluate the <br /> method of removal and the affect° of the removal un the <br /> snvi viemmanta 1 iii* i ty and features. <br /> 3. Even if 6.320 were interpreted as standard* for whether <br /> removal in allowed, thin plan meets thee* atardardo which are <br /> applicable as addressed boloWt <br /> (a) The removal of diseased and dangerous trees is allowed by <br /> the permit. <br /> (b) The applicant believes the plan shows that the removal <br /> will not *relate eraeien, maintsir a sail stability, prote:Gto <br /> surface waters and protects nearby trees and maintains wind breaks <br /> as required. <br /> (c) The appellant believes that utilization of his property <br /> in a reasonable manner as tautliuriied by the Code includes the <br /> minor thinning proposed. <br /> (d) the appellant believes his plan for limited tree removal <br /> will not have a detrimental eEEaet upon the environmental quality <br /> of the area due to tho selective nature of removal, the large <br /> number of treetop to be retained and the protcotion provided to <br /> adjacent properties and sensitive areas_ <br /> (e) The thinning proposed will not result in any openings <br /> adequate in size to require revegetation. <br /> (f) The removal plan is • vary light commercial thinning. <br /> Such thinning' will space trees in a manner Which is compatible <br /> with generally accepted practices of silviculture. <br /> (q) The felling io within the guidelines of the Oregon <br /> Forestry Practice Rules which certainly allow for the: removal of <br /> healthy Douglas fir trees. <br /> The appellant suggests that the tree appeal board tweet on the <br /> property to aoseea the removal proposed. The appellant's forester <br /> will guide the Saard and identify those trees proposed for <br /> removal. <br />