Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

approval criteria; 2. Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual isolated trees subject to windthrow; 3. Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or shade expansive areas of pavement; 4. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses; 5. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback areas; 6. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors; 7. Trees with significant habitat value; 8. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets; 9. Trees located along a water feature; 10. Heritage trees. Finding: As explained in the Staff Report, the applicant submitted a Tree Preservation Plan that indicates the location of all existing trees on site and evaluates them under this criterion. At the applicant's request, the City Planning Director waived the requirement for a licensed arborist on the professional design team. Instead, the applicant's tree preservation plan was prepared by the applicant's representative, who is a licensed landscape architect. Several neighbors objected to the city's waiver of the requirement that the tree preservation plan be submitted by a certified arborist, arguing that a plan prepared by a landscape architect is inadequate to evaluate the conditions of trees on the site. As one neighbor stated, "the specialized skill of an arborist is necessary to make determinations as to the health of trees". He further explained, "there is no way to audit the landscape architect's work. We can't access the site; it is private property. We can't examine each tree. How do we know the information is accurate?" (Mark Conley, March 20, 2018.) In response to concerns raised regarding the tree preservation plan, the applicant retained an arborist to provide additional review. Kyle King, a local certified arborist, walked the property and observed the condition of the individual trees as well as the forest as a whole. He also reviewed the applicant's Tree Preservation Plan. In a report dated March 21, 2018, the arborist provided an evaluation and concluded that, in his opinion, the assessment in the applicant's Tree Preservation Plan is appropriate. As discussed above, areas included in the proposed Tract A common open space and within the individual preservation areas of the eastern lots comprise the majority of significant trees and vegetation which are suitable for preservation. As described in the Tree Preservation Plan, the condition of trees throughout the site varies from good to poor. Many of the trees have not been actively maintained for decades. A number of trees have been damaged by events such as ice storms and severe wind over the years. All of the trees shown on the lots in areas where construction may occur are listed on the Tree Preservation Plan as "discretionary" trees, which indicates that they could be removed at the Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 36