Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

elevations below and to the west. " The screening she is referring to includes both mature trees onsite and offsite (in the yards of neighboring residences). This screening may exist today; however, it will be severely negatively impacted by the planned removal of almost 60 mature trees at the western edge of the development. (Two very large trees will be removed from Preservation Area Tract C to make way for "ornamental planting" and an additional 55 or more trees will be removed from lots bordering the project's western edge to make way for the widening of Capital Drive and lot development.) The Hearings Official should have requested from the Applicant an analysis of the visual impact of the removal of these trees. Further, the Hearings Official did not consider the potential impact to existing major trees on neighbor's properties over time... especially as it relates to each neighbors' right to remove trees, the likelihood that some neighboring trees will become damaged or die over time or that they will be removed because of further development of adjoining lots. The Hearings Official erred in not recognizing that the planned removal of one large redwood tree (split into 2 trunks) (Tree 41398 in good condition) located in Tract C is in direct violation of the guidelines for Preservation Areas. This violation was specifically brought to the Hearings Official's attention on Page 2 through 4 (including photographs) of the Committee's additional testimony regarding EC 9.8320(8) submitted on 3/21/18. (The Committee's comments were never addressed by the Hearings Official.) Approval Condition #8 as proposed by the Hearings Official, states "The final plan shall include a note that states: "on Tracts A, B, C, and D no impacts to preserved trees and no grading activity shall be allowed. " The Hearings Official erred on both Page 23 (in her discussion of the South Hills Study) and on Page 31 & 32 (in her discussion of screening for the project under Criterion 9.8320 (3)) because she relied on both mature trees off-site and off-site neighboring residential structures to provide screening for the development. The provisions of the South Hills Study and of Criterion 3 as they relate to screening address the requirement that the proposed development provide the screening, not that the surrounding neighborhood provide the screening. Criterion 3 specifically states "The PUD will provide adequate screening..." She states (p. 23): "The neighboring off-site mature trees and existing homes significantly obscure the view of the top of the ridge from lower elevations to the west. The Applicant indicates that of the 34 proposed lots, 8 lots have the potential to be viewed from beyond the property to the west, but it is highly unlikely given the current condition of off-site mature trees. She states (p. 31): "The adjacent residential neighborhood to the west also has steep topography, significantly sloping away from the site. The site is currently mostly obscured from view and difficult to observe from the flatter elevations below and to the west. " The Hearings Official also erred on Page 22 regarding a similar "screening" topic when she stated that "The proposed development also includes a preservation area along the northeast boundary of the subject property which abuts the established public open space of Hendricks Park..." This statement by.the Hearings Official is misleading. At the northeast corner of Lot 5, there is a very small strip of so-called individual tax lot preservation area that is approximately 10-12 feet in width east to west. This 10-12 foot strip of land abuts Hendricks Park to the north. Additionally, there is an approximate 50 foot wide (east to west) northern portion of Tract A that 12