July 21, 2015
David Dahle, Chair
Erma Hoffman, Treasurer
Sarah Owens, Sec’y
p=present a=absent e=excused
Residents: Bill Holmstrom, Deb Comini, Rosa Leonardi, Richard Lewis
Organizations: Susan Gallagher, Gallagher Fitness Resources
City/County Representatives: Councilor Bennett; Officer Vanmeter, SPD; Patricia Farrell, Natural Resource Specialist, Public Works Department
The regular meeting of the CanDo Board of Directors was called to order at 6:03 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 2015, at the First Christian Church at 685 Marion Street NE, Salem.
David Dahle was in the chair and Sarah Owens was secretary.
The agenda and the minutes of the June meeting were approved unanimously.
Councilor Bennett reported on upcoming events, the Willamette Humane Society and Marion Polk County Community Cat Program, and the Council’s intention to improve the city’s strategy for dealing with the city’s 20 to 30 dangerous and derelict buildings.
Officer Vanmeter reported a decrease in “car clout” and car theft incidents downtown, reasonably good success with a bike “baiting” strategy, cooperation with county probation and parole authorities in policing Wallace Marine Park (which efforts may result in Park residents moving into downtown), the Salem Police Foundation’s and Downtown Enforcement Team (DET)’s “Drop-in Gladiator” running club for youth at the Marion Street HOME Youth Resource Center, which they are looking to expand through cooperation with other charitable organizations.
In “interested citizen” comments, Susan Gallagher talked about the upcoming High Street Hustle fitness event on August 15, and asked for volunteers.
The board then heard a presentation by Patricia Farrell on the proposed amendments to Chapter 86 (“Tree Code”). Note: the text presented to the board was not the same as the one submitted to Council on June 8, 2015, and Ms. Farrell indicated staff had, and would continue to make, changes to the text during the period of “public outreach.” All those wishing to follow the amendment process should contact Ms. Farrell to ensure they have the latest version of the text to work from.
In new business, the following motion by Woody Dukes, Michael Livingston and Sarah Owens passed unanimously:
That the CanDo board recommend to the Council that the Tree Code Citizen’s Advisory Committee (TCCAC) and staff be commended for their work revising SRC 86 and that the proposed revisions be adopted/enacted with the following changes to the procedures on permitting decisions:
- clarify in the ordinance itself that an application for a variance is made as part of a permit application to trim or remove a tree;
- simplify the appeal process by having the Director issue all initial decisions, including variances, and send appeals to an appeal body;
- limit the right of appeal to the applicant and neighborhood association (i.e., require timely commenters desiring to appeal to work through the neighborhood association, rather than giving them the right to individual appeals), and allow the neighborhood association to appeal decisions involving variances**;
- although CanDo recommends that appeals be sent to an Urban Tree Commission, if a majority of the Council is not inclined to create the UTC, send permit-decision appeals to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (SPRAB);
- although CanDo recommends that the final decision be left with the appeal body (preferably UTC or SPRAB), if a majority of the Council is not inclined to leave the final decision with the appeal body, e.g., for reasons of liability, add a provision that will allow the Council, by majority vote, to review the appeal body’s decisions no later than the next session following report of the appeal body’s decision.
**(Emphasis not in original; city staff have already amended proposed SRC 86.055(d) to conform it to SRC 86.080 by allowing neighborhood associations and timely commenters to appeal permitting decisions involving variance requests.)