My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2018 10:39:26 AM
Creation date
3/12/2018 10:38:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
334
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
AccordingtotheTreeAssessmentsubmittedaspartoftheSitePlans(SheetNo.L3.0), <br />"TreestoberemovedhavebeendeterminedbyLandscapeArchitecttobe: <br />1.Intheconstructionpath <br />2.Indamagedcondition <br />3.Inseriouslydeclininghealth <br />4.Hazardoustofutureresidents <br />5.Technicalfelling" <br />Alandscapearchitectdoesnothavethenecessarytrainingorqualificationstomaketheabove <br />statements.Itisnotenoughthat"theapplicant'sagentisalicensedlandscapearchitectwhohas <br />submittedplansonbehalfofmanyapplicantsovertheyearsandhasdemonstratedprofessional <br />knowledgeoftheEugeneCoderequirements",asstatedintheStaffReportinreferencetoa <br />waiverofthisrequirement.Knowledgeofcodehasnothingtodowiththeknowledgerequired <br />forexpertevaluationoftreeissues.Nordoessubmittingmanyplansprovideanyrelevant <br />experience.InhowmanyoftheseplansdidMs.Schirmerdemonstratetheexpertiseofalicensed <br />arborist?Thiscannotbeconsideredexperttestimony. <br />Thecurriculumforthelandscapearchitect’sdegreeattheUniversityofOregoncontainedno <br />classesthatwouldqualifyhertoassessthehealthofaforest.Therefore,theApplication'sclaim <br />thatmorethanhalfofthetreesarenotingoodhealthisspeculation.Furthermore,the <br />Applicationoffersnocriteriafordefiningwhatdesignatesatreeasinhealthyorinpoor <br />condition,excepttosaythatthetreesweredamagedbyicestormsinrecentyears. <br />Whiletherequirementsof EC9.8310(2)(b)maybewaivedbytheplanningdirector,the <br />ResponseCommitteecontendsthattheCityshouldrequireacertifiedarboristonthe <br />developmentteaminacasesuchasthis,wheretheproposedPUDexistsinaforested <br />environmentonaridgelinesubjecttotheprovisionsoftheSouthHillsStudyandwherethe <br />proposedPUDwouldbecontiguousontwosideswithHendricksParkandtheRibbonTrail,two <br />ofEugene’spremierurbanparks. <br />TheCHPUDResponseCommitteeaskedJamesMehrwein,RegisteredProfessionalForester, <br />RPF,ACF,toanalyzetheforestonthesiteoftheproposedCHPUDsite,andhisreportis <br />submittedasAttachmentH.Henotedadistressedtreeandsignsofstormdamage,but <br />concludedthattheforestwashealthyforanaturalforest. <br />TheApplicationemphasizesthatthereisstormdamage,thattheconiferoustreesovershadow <br />andinhibitthegrowthofthedeciduoustrees,andthattheyhave(p.36of67)"notbeen <br />maintainedfordecades."TheApplication’sconclusionthatthetreesmaybecutbecausemostof <br />themarenothealthyandnotofa“highqualityorvalue”isclearlybasedonalackof <br />understandingofwhatconstitutesahealthyforest.TheforestonthesiteoftheproposedCHPUD <br />isnormalforanaturalforest,muchliketheforestincontiguousHendricksPark,wherelargefir <br />treesdominatethelandscape. <br />50 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.