My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch B
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2018 4:02:01 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:18:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Misc.
Document_Date
3/6/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Gi LL Nick <br />0_ <br />From: Jason Brown <brownjll@uoregon.edu> <br />Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 12:10 PM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject: Tree questions for record CHPUD <br />Dear Nick: i have what is more a note than a question. When the applicant discusses Tree Preservation, they discuss unhealthy <br />trees and "critical root" zones in support of their argument. However, I see no reference to a "certified arborist" or a forester <br />in reference to their technical details. They do not define unhealthy in any quantV4able or scientific way and offer no <br />expertise. Chapter 9 of the Eugene code clearly outlines the necessity of the expertise of a "certified aborist" and to <br />substantiate claims. Best, Jason <br />Jason Brown <br />Associate Professor of Creative Writing <br />University of Oregon <br />(917) 767-5386 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.