New Search
Finding: R-7.280-E.7.2.1 & 7.2.2 define "critical root zone" which is a term used <br />in determining the required area around the tree to be protected from construction <br />activities. The 3" caliper is the point at which the basis of determination changes from a <br />protective azea of a three foot radius for smaller trees to a formula based measurement to <br />provide lazger protective azeas for lazger trees. <br />Trees of many sizes may have need for protection on a development. 1-1/2" and <br />2" caliper trees in the planting program are minimums required and may be exceeded if <br />the developer so elects. In addition, existing trees of varying sizes may be preserved. No <br />correlation to the other tree caliper citations included in the planting specifications in these <br />administrative rules was intended nor deemed to be necessary, nor is any revision to the <br />rule necessary. <br />Comment 11: The orange fencing required by R-7.280-E.7.5.2 is extremely ugly, <br />and the word "orange" should be removed. <br />F dinn: 'The purpose of the required fencing is to place a highly visible physical <br />protective device in place to ensure no construction impacts to the area being protected. <br />The standard orange protective fencing is specifically designed for this purpose and has <br />been shown to be effective. However, R-7.280-E.7.5.2 also contains the statement "or <br />approved equivalent" which would provide an applicant a process to obtain approval for <br />a substitution. A request for alternative fencing would be evaluated by the Urban Forester <br />and if shown effective could be allowed in place of the specified "orange" fencing. For <br />example, more physically substantial but less visible fencing material such as woven wire <br />or chain link may be approved, as an alternate if site conditions warranted. <br />Comment 12: The tree pruning standards in R-7.280-G.3.7 are vague, unclear, and <br />do not make sense. <br />Finding: I concur in part with this comment, and R-7.280-G.3.7 has been revised <br />to clarify the intent. <br />Comment 13: Although not addressing a specific rule, one party commented that <br />it is hard to imagine that the City will be in a position to hire employees to carry out the <br />Local Street Plan due to the unforeseen effects that Measure 47 is expected to have on our <br />community. <br />Finding: The provisions relating to trees in the Local Street Plan and the City's <br />Street Tree Program aze funded through the Road Fund which is not dependent on property <br />tax revenues which are expected to be impacted by Measure 47. Staffing for this program <br />is intended to be funded through fees the program generates. <br />Comment 14: The rules are vague in several areas that leave too much room for <br />interpretation, thus resulting in added delays in processing time for building permits. <br />F ~: Section 7.280(3) of the Eugene Code, 1971 requires a developer to obtain <br />approval of a Street Tree Plan prior to receiving approval of a final plat. Since approval <br />Street Tree Ptan Agreement -City Plants Alternate - 9 of 25 9 ~ ,,, O u ~ ~ p <br />