New Search
Klf.LED. THE Page 2 <br /> specifically "allows" the City to enter this area for the purpose of trimming street <br /> trees. If we clearly owned the trees we wouldn't need this code authorization. <br /> Due to the above, what we intend to do is: <br /> a) Send them a bill <br /> b) If they don't pay, we'll send them a stronger reminder. <br /> c) If they don't pay we'll ask the City Attorney's office to send them a strong <br /> letter. <br /> d) If they still don't pay, Glenn recommends we drop it at this point. <br /> 2. To fix this problem we can develop specific new regulatory municipal code <br /> language to established regulatory standards under which street trees may be <br /> pruned. Of course, this would have to be done through a public hearing code <br /> adoption process. <br /> We likely do not want to get into a situation where we have to issue permits. At least <br /> I don't think we want this additional workload. However we could establish a standard <br /> that anyone pruning street trees has to do so under national accepted standards (ISA <br /> perhaps). We could establish that failure to do so would be enforced through payment <br /> of a fine and whatever costs it would take us to correct the problem. <br /> 3. If you assume the parking strip is part of the abutting property .it then becomes <br /> legally arguable that any occupied property or vacant with a building permit and <br /> is less than 20,000 square feet could REMOVE street trees at their discretion <br /> without our having any recourse. This could be MOST of the street trees in <br /> Eugene. <br /> Again, this could be fixed by modifying the Tree Preservation Ordinance to require a <br /> permit and establish criteria for the removal of any street tree. Again, a public <br /> process and hearing would be required in the ordinance change process. <br /> This becomes an interesting "can -of- worms" which I think we need to have some serious <br /> strategy discussion on. <br />