Eugene Hearing Official <br />April 6, 2018 <br />Page 17 <br /> <br />subjective judgment when evaluating tree removal in conjunction with the density allowed by the <br />code. In addition, many terms in the list of 10 priorities are undefined and ambiguous. <br /> <br />2. The Staff Report at 21-22 addresses this standard in a competent fashion; we recommend <br />those findings to the HO, including the conditions of approval recommended by the staff. <br /> <br />3. Compliance with this standard was a major target for opposition. Opposition critiqued many <br />aspects of the tree preservation evidence and proposal, including with a report by a forester <br />certified in California. <br /> <br />In response to the opposition testimony, the applicant submitted a report by Kyle King, licensed <br />Oregon arborist, in the March 21 open record period. See Hearing Exhibit K submitted with <br />Schirmer Satre Letter dated March 21. <br /> <br />The Schirmer Satre letter explains that the opposition report from California forester Mehrwein <br />needs to be weighed with a grain of salt. He is not a certified Oregon arborist, and the Eugene <br />code does not recognize an out-of-state professional forester as an acceptable design professional <br />for a tentative PUD process. Schirmer Satre Lttr at 2. <br /> <br />The makes several points in response to the broad <br />pattern attack by opponents. See Hearing Exhibit K. <br /> <br />His assessment is based on a site visit, in contrast to the report of Mr. Mehrwein. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The deciduous trees located in the buildable areas are in no better condition than are <br />those in the thicker forested areas. Their removal will not create a significant loss to the <br />tree canopy or general health of the environment. <br /> <br />The tree canopy health will improve with the planting of new, healthy and more <br />appropriate trees. <br /> <br />He explains why removal of trees from some areas and leaving trees in groupings in other <br />areas is not likely to create a windthrow problem in the future. <br /> <br />He explains why the proposal to leave a large area of trees adjacent to the Ribbon Trail <br />on the steepest slopes on the site is the most responsible way to approach tree protection <br />on this site, including for preserving habitat value. <br /> <br />Finally, as evidence that the tree canopy on this site will fare well under the development <br />proposal and provide good screening and fit with the neighborhood, he explained that the <br />canopy in the surrounding neighborhood has this quality, and it was developed in much <br /> <br /> <br />