New Search
Make tree - cutters pay 7/7i�q <br /> I am one of many who support the Eugene <br /> + City Council's recent changes to the city's tree - <br /> cutting ordinance. My comment now: Put some <br /> teeth into the ordinance. Place monetary <br /> penalties upon those developers who think they <br /> are beyond the ordinance. The planning de- <br /> partment has no leverage on a developer who <br /> cuts in disregard of the ordinance or pre -ap- <br /> proved plan. A good case study of this is the <br /> Shasta Ridge development, located west of <br /> Spring Boulevard between SweetBriar Lane <br /> and South Shasta Loop. <br /> I attended a public hearing in December <br /> 1991 to voice my concerns, not toward the de- <br /> velopment itself, but with hydrology and un- <br /> dermining soil erosion of existing trees. I was <br /> assured of "maximum preservation of existing <br /> vegetation" and "a condition requiring a grad- <br /> ing and tree removal plan subject to review by <br /> the City Planning Division and the city's urban <br /> forester." <br /> Not! The urban forester didn't even know <br /> the site existed last July until KVAL -TV carne <br /> down to interview him about it. After a site <br /> visit by the forester and the planning depart- <br /> ment it was concluded they could do little. <br /> Trees were already cut. The planning depart- <br /> ment stated they wished that stricter penalties <br /> "s'"� r ‘P‘" •.: could be In the ordinance for unauthorized cut <br /> ting, but none existed. <br /> Think of the penalties as a new revenue <br /> source for the city. There won't be any incre- <br /> mental expenses; the city already has the ur- <br /> ban forester on the payroll. Just kick him out <br /> of his office once in awhile and give him some <br /> tools to enforce the ordinance. If past practice <br /> is any indication of developers' willingness to <br /> sidestep planning requirements, the city will <br /> make a bundle. <br /> DARYL HUBLER <br /> Eugene <br />