Committee did not indicate that a 47 ft. building height (in some cases on steep slopes) is not <br />allowed. Rather, it questioned the distasteful results of that allowance when discussing height, <br />scale and bulk in the interest of surfacing the proposed project's noxious results and, perhaps, in <br />reducing the proposed density. <br />Assignments of Error, Criterion 4 <br />Appeal Issue #10: The hearing official erred by failure to ensure the applicant satisfied the <br />requirements Criterion 4 by waiving the requirement for a licensed arborist on the professional <br />design team, and by disregarding the evidence provided by Jim Mehrwein, Registered <br />Professional Forester. <br />This evidence is important because, simply put, a Forester will care for the forest as a whole <br />ecosystem while an Arborist will care for an individual tree. A forester receives their formal <br />education and training in college. The education and training of an Arborist may or may not <br />include formal training with a college degree. The International Society of Arboriculture offers <br />different certification opportunities that are recognized as the gold standard of arborist education <br />and training. Arboriculture involves the care of individual trees, while urban forestry deals with <br />forests as systems (groups of trees) in a developed setting. The science of arboriculture focuses <br />on proper tree planting, pruning, fertilizing, water and other maintenance issues. It also focuses <br />on overall individual tree health. Urban forestry is also a social science, as well as incorporating <br />arboriculture, and includes landscape level management such as urban forest inventory, <br />valuation, planning, policy, etc. The two fields certainly overlap, but the training and practice of <br />a forester is specific to evaluate the heath of a forest, root balls, impact of wind, and potential of <br />mud slide. <br />Appeal Issue #11; The Hearings Official erred by improperly evaluating evidence in support of <br />compliance with EC 9.8320(4)(a)(2). <br />The Hearings Official notes that the City planning staff has concluded that the subject property is <br />included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, relying on the April 12, 1978 Scenic <br />Sites Working Paper which designates the subject property as Natural Sites of Visual <br />Prominence and Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation. This specific designation provides guidance <br />on how the property should be viewed. <br />The main natural feature of the site is the "evergreen forested" ridgeline defined in the South <br />Hills Study, and on this ridgeline above.901' the Applicant proposes to preserve approximately. <br />1100 sq ft and two trees of significant size. The code explicitly calls for avoiding "unnecessary <br />disruption or removal of attractive natural features and vegetation, topographic features, and <br />other unique and worthwhile natural features." <br />The Applicant also fails to provide details on "anticipated building locations, bulk and height". <br />This information is promised at a future date, or in CCR's, but as part of the PUD process the <br />14 <br />