1994 Tree Ordinance - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

it,G TT ree w veto helpful ugene Mayor Ruth Bascom did Most builders find that it's in their E the right thing when she vetoed interest to preserve trees. It may be a new tree - protection ordinance. that the effects of encouragement and The City Council voted 7 -1 last week coercion would be roughly the same, to approve the ordinance, which except that the latter would be more could mean the required six - member costly. majority will override the veto when It will cost the city an estimated the council meets Monday. But the ve- $50 to issue a simple permit to cut six to offers the council a chance to slow to 10 trees. Issuing a permit to cut up down, listen to the public and study to 50 trees and reviewing a builder's the details of the ordinance. The logging plan would cost an estimated . council should take that opportunity. $275. A permit for a large -scale devel- Whether a strict new tree - preser- opment involving the removal of 50 or vation law is needed is far from clear. The event that first inspired efforts to The mayor wielded her toughen tree preservation rules oc- curred four years ago, when a hillside leg , though in South Eugene was logged before being annexed to the city for residen- se -Used, power. tial development. The council's new ordinance would not have saved those ��? trees. Instead, trees in areas outside more trees would cost an estimated the city limits but inside the urban $475. These costs would presumably growth boundary are protected under be recovered from builders in the a two-year -old agreement between form of permit fees. Builders would the city and Lane County. also have to pay the cost of drawing In more recent years, the loudest up the required logging plans. complaints about tree cutting have Imposing these additional costs on come after landowners cut down indi- builders — and, ultimately, home vidual trees large enough or old buyers — would be justified if current enough to have become local land- building practices were destroying marks. The new ordinance would do forested urban areas, and if such de- nothing to protect such trees. struction could be averted by a new i . Indeed, the great majority of trees law. It seems likely, however, that . inside the city would be unprotected with or without the new ordinance, by the ordinance. Most homeowners construction practices on heavily would be free to cut as many trees as treed city lots will remain much the they like — lots smaller than 20,000 same. Most builders will try to save square feet that have existing or ap- trees, and all builders will have to cut proved buildings on them would not some. Bascom believes a 25 -tree be subject to the law's restrictions. threshold for the notice requirement would be more reasonable, and she's The ordinance's primary effect right. • would be on vacant property being prepared for development. Builders Bascom also thinks the council would be allowed to cut down as acted too hastily in approving the or- many as five trees eight inches or dinance. The council voted without a larger in diameter. A permit would be public hearing, without debating an required for cutting six or more trees. alternative proposal, without hearing Neighbors and other interested citi- staff presentations and without any zens would have to be notified before discussion of costs. If the interests of 10 or more trees were cut. In addi- any group other than developers had lion, builders cutting 10 or more trees been disposed of in such a manner, would have to file logging plans spell- there would be howls of outrage from ing out steps to mitigate the effect on council members, and justifiably so. scenery, wildlife and neighboring When it meets Monday the council . properties. Citizens who object to tree should take note of the concerns of 1 cutting permits could appeal to a city the only city official who represents hearings officer. all of Eugene. Rather than calling her These and other requirements veto "undemocratic" (Barbara (Paul Nicholson), id "stu would tighten the city's existing tree Keller) or p ( protection ordinance. The new ordi- council members should acknowledge f nance would go beyond a tree plan the mayor wielded her legitimate, approved last fall, which asked only though seldom -used, power for valid that developers be encouraged to pro- reas And if the council proceeds test urban trees. It's too soon to con- in a similar fashion on other issues, clude that the existing ordinance and the mayor shouldn't hesitate to use the plan's encouragement have failed. her v eto again r