1994 Tree Ordinance - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

- that the respondents feel no trees should be removed to accommodate an unspecified development. In all cases, the applicants' reference to future development was not considered germane with respect to the tree code's criteria for removal and as such was not considered. The applications were judged on the remaining relevant points that included removal of trees found hazardous to existing structures and streets or trees that were infested with insects or harbored disease and thus a threat to the remaining trees. Each of the three major permits took an average of eight hours to process including three hours within the office and five hours in the field. The field time consisted of two hours looking over the site before approval and three hours for inspections of work in progress. The staff time spent on processing has been within the cost projection used to determine the permit fees needed to cover the administrative overhead of this code. However, staff costs for responding to citizen requests for investigations of alleged violations or questions regarding specific removals have increased. Performance of field inspections consists of each active major permit being checked twice daily for compliance with the provisions of permit. However, even twice daily inspections has not ensured the complete protection against removals outside the provisions of a permit. Of these three major permits, two have been completed without incident. One (Benchmark Northwest., Inc.) has been suspended for violation to the provisions of the permit. City Council has received background on this case in previous staff memoranda. The problems seen in this case are not felt to be an omission in the code but a misinterpretation of the permit provisions made by the permittee. The City Attorney's Office will add verbiage in the administrative rules to avoid this in the future. The extra costs incurred by staff due to the violation is planned to be included in the fine levied against the permittee. In general, during the past six months the Office of the Urban Forester has received one written comment against the new code. This was the attached letter from the Home Builders Association of Lane County. They feel some code provisions to be vague, leading to inconsistent interpretation. In addition, the Home Builders believe overall that the same number of trees will be removed through the development process with or without the tree code. They contend the tree code has added considerably to the costs for the City and land owners. On the other hand, many of the letters commenting on specific permit applications have said that the code still allows removal of too many trees. Some citizens have stated that the code criteria should be more restrictive and allow the removal of only those trees necessary to accommodate houses or trees that are hazardous to existing buildings and traffic. A representative letter from Mr. Arthur Farley commenting on the Benchmark Northwest permit is attached. 2