I "An applicant for a development permit for tree removal shall provide a detailed <br />2 tree removal/tree protection plan. * * * The plan shall include the following basic <br />3 information: <br />4 "(A) A tree survey of regulated and/or significant trees on site * * <br />5 CDC 3.0010 defines "tree survey" as: <br />6 "A drawing that provides the location of all trees having an eight inch or greater <br />7 DBH plotted by accurate techniques and designates the common or botanical name <br />8 of those trees, and their DBH." (Emphasis added.) <br />9 As discussed earlier, the subject property is almost 70 acres. While the city required a tree <br />10 survey, it accepted a tree survey based on a one-acre sample of the property. Record 548. That <br />11 sample found 65 regulated trees on one acre, and extrapolated from that number to conclude that <br />12 there are 4,093 regulated trees on the 70-acre property. The county found, based on that sample, <br />13 that the proposal would remove 1,802 regulated trees on 20.77 acres, which petitioner asserts <br />14 leaves barely enough trees to avoid "clear-cutting" as the CDC defines that term. <br />15 Petitioners argue that the plain language of the CDC requires that the applicant survey all <br />16 trees on the property, and does not permit extrapolation from a sample of 1/70th of the property. <br />17 Respondents argue that the city's routine practice is to allow sample surveys for larger properties, <br />18 and not require applicants to survey the entire property. In any case, respondents argue, removal of <br />19 trees necessary to accomplish a "public purpose," including installation of public facilities and utilities <br />20 in a right-of-way, is permitted under CDC 9.1012(3). <br />21 We agree with petitioner that the plain language of the CDC requires a survey of all trees <br />22 exceeding a certain diameter on the property, not a sample representing 1/70th of the property. <br />23 That the city's practice is not in accord with the CDC is not a basis to ignore the code requirements. <br />24 The city's desire to avoid what may be in some cases an unnecessary expense to the applicant is <br />25 understandable. Even if that desire were a basis to vary the code requirement in some cases, <br />26 however, the present case would not seem an appropriate one. As petitioners point out, the <br />27 extrapolated sample indicates that, at best, the proposal will barely avoid the prohibition on clear- <br />28 cutting. There is no evidence in the record, however, as to how that sample was selected, whether <br />Page 12 <br />