discretionary trees, removal trees, and technical felling trees. See chart below. <br /> <br />Trees 14 inches in Trees 15-20 inches Trees 21 inches in Of the 21 and over <br />diameter and under in diameter diameter and over trees, very large <br />trees 36 inches in <br />diameter and over <br />Current total: 454 Current total: 115 Current total: 298 Current total: 77 <br />Remove: 55 Remove: 21 Remove: 54 Remove: 14 <br />Discretionary: 164 Discretionary: 45 Discretionary: 127 Discretionary: 37 <br />Conservation: 235 Conservation: 49 Conservation: 117 Conservation: 36 <br />(tech felling -10) (tech felling -7) (tech felling -23) (tech felling -7) <br />50% of trees can be 63% of trees can be 69% of trees can be 75% of trees can be <br />removed (or 229 removed (or 73 removed (or 204 removed <br />trees) trees) trees) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Lastly, trees adjacent to parks and streets should be preserved. The applicant has <br />preserved trees in the narrow corridor of Tract A (the single virtue of the Tree <br />Preservation plan). However, many of the trees in Tract A will be cut down to make way <br />for the storm water run off, and they will be replaced with trees of low habitat value <br />because they are too small. Those small trees will never live to grow because right of way <br />must be maintained for construction crews to maintain the storm water system. No <br />preservation is provided adjacent to the most important open space area in Eugene: <br />Hendricks Park. <br /> <br />In Summary: The Joint Response Committee argues that the Eugene Planning Staff has <br />erroneously recommended approval of the Proposed Capital Hill PUD. The main problem <br />with the Eugene Planning StaffÈs approach to the proposed development lies in their <br />repeated assertion that the Applicant has created the only possible or the best possible <br />proposal for the site and should therefor be excused from meeting most of the criteria of <br />the refinement plans. The Joint Response Committee finds this statement a weak <br />argument on behalf of a Application who has manifestly failed to meet most of the <br />standard and criteria of the South Hills Study and Laurel Hill refinement plans and the <br />Tree Preservation section of the PUD approval criteria. A proposal for a planned unit <br />development that would meet the needs of the community and the environment would be <br />possible, but it is not the job of the community to make such a proposal. <br />