New Search
• <br /> An ordinance concerning tree felling; amending sections 6.300, 6.305, <br /> 6.310, 6.320, 6.325 and 6.330 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing <br /> Section 6.315 of that code; and declaring an emergency. <br /> (Draft B) <br /> OR <br /> Provide direction to staff. <br /> IV. DISCUSSION <br /> This issue was raised by Councilor Keller at a May 12, 1993, council work <br /> session in reaction to constituent concerns about potential tree cutting on <br /> undeveloped land within the City limits. Citizens were concerned that the <br /> existing tree ordinance does not call for public notification or a comment <br /> process when an application to cut trees is being processed. They believe the <br /> existing process does not allow interested parties to provide additional <br /> information related to wetlands, endangered species, and other environmental <br /> issues for areas proposed for tree cutting. There was also concern about <br /> perceived inconsistencies in the ordinance process related to requirements for <br /> tree felling under the PUD process, compared to requirements for tree felling <br /> prior to the creation of development plans. <br /> The existing tree ordinance is attached. The ordinance requires that no more <br /> than five trees can be felled within a single calendar year from a parcel of <br /> private property consisting of 20,000 or more square feet of area without a <br /> permit. Criteria is given for the Urban Forester to apply when considering a <br /> permit to fell trees. Criteria (c) discusses the necessity to remove trees in <br /> order to construct proposed improvements, or to otherwise utilize the appli- <br /> cant's property in a reasonable manner. The criteria does not prohibit the <br /> cutting of healthy trees, but implies that healthy trees will not be cut <br /> except for the reasons in (c). <br /> When partitions of land are reviewed, there are no requirements related to <br /> tree felling. When PUDs or subdivision development plans are reviewed, tree <br /> felling must be consistent with the South Hills Study. This study essentially <br /> requires that there is minimal impact to the natural character of the area. <br /> Trees are to be preserved to the extent possible while allowing development to <br /> occur. <br /> Council adopted the Urban Forest Management Plan in late 1992. Section 12.0 <br /> of this plan says, ". . the City will encourage the retention and planting <br /> of healthy, well -sited trees. . . ." Both drafts of the ordinance are consis- <br /> tent with this direction, although Draft A sets additional . restrictions for <br /> the Urban Forester to consider when granting permits than have existed in the <br /> current ordinance. <br /> In summary, Draft A makes several changes to the criteria and changes the <br /> process associated with reviewing permits. Draft B makes fewer changes to the <br /> criteria and to the process for reviewing permits. <br /> There are some similarities in the drafts. Both drafts make the criteria for <br /> permit issuance more specific. Both drafts also contain some "housekeeping" <br /> changes. These changes include the time period in which trees can be cut <br />