Appeal Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

tree preservation under EC 9.8440(2)(b). Based on the site constraints discussed above, and specifically the priority listed at EC 9.8840(2)(b)1. which discusses healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base zoning (commercial, C-2) and other applicable approval criteria (such as the development standards necessitating the amount of infrastructure and design for the proposed hotel), the Planning Commission concludes there is adequate evidence in the record to demonstrate compliance with the approval criteria. Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the Hearings Official erred in determining that EC 9.8440(2) is not satisfied because the applicant has demonstrated that the project is designed and sited to preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible in this instance. 32-inch Block Cottonwood Tree: The record also includes discussion of a 32-inch black cottonwood tree that is located on-site and within the /WR Water Resources Conservation setback area. The Hearings Official stated in his decision, "The applicant responds in its final legal argument that it will retain the tree and that retention of the tree can be made a condition of approval. According to the applicant, any potential removal would be subject to applicable standards in the future. With conditions of approval EC 9.4930(2)(k) can be satisfied" (Hearings Official Decision, page 12). While the appellant originally proposed removal of this tree, the appellant stated in their final argument that a condition could be imposed to ensure retention of the 32-inch black cottonwood tree. In their appeal statement, the appellant proposed the following condition of approval: "The development shall preserve the 32" in diameter black cottonwood tree within the Willamette Greenway originally proposed for removal and shall amend the tree preservation plan, and landscaping plan to reflect preservation of that tree." The Planning Commission does not agree with the Hearings Official that EC 9.4930(2)(k) can only be met with a condition of approval. In regards to the 32-inch black cottonwood tree, the Terra Science report submitted by the applicant states "...such removal is necessary, since cottonwoods commonly split as they age and become windfall hazards. At 32-inch diameter, the cottonwood is `ripe' for such damage" (page 3 of Attachment M, Applicant's Supplemental Materials, submitted April 4, 2016). Additional evidence to support removal of the tree is provided by the project arborist, Ken Ball. He states the following in his original arborist report: "Removal of cottonwood tree, highly recommended for obvious safety reasons" (Attachment N, Applicant's Supplemental Materials submitted April 4, 2016, page 4). During the open record period following the public hearing before the Hearings Official, a supplemental letter from Mr. Ball was submitted into the record on June 15, 2016. His letter states, "My evaluation of the [32-inch black cottonwood] tree over the past six months have resulted in my determining that this tree will be dangerous during construction, and certainly to the hotel and parking lot that will soon be constructed immediately to the north of said tree. The tree should be removed" (Exhibit C2, Arborist's Supplemental Report submitted June 15, 2016). Based on evidence in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the 32-inch black cottonwood is hazardous, and therefore no condition of approval requiring preservation is imposed Weather Protection Condition: The Hearings Official recommended that a weather protection condition be imposed to satisfy EC 9.2173(6)(d). In their appeal statement, the appellant suggested language for 5