existing vegetation. <br />With regard to the proposed 6-foot see-through agricultural-type fence along the eastern <br />property line, the appellant argues that it would effectively nullify the utility of Tract A as a <br />wildlife corridor. However, staff does not believe this issue is relevant under the criterion for <br />adequate screening, as it would be a see-through fence and not intended for the purpose of <br />visual screening. Initially, when this issue was raised in the appeal testimony, staff believed <br />there may be a basis under the PUD approval criteria to preclude the fence in the interest of <br />facilitating wildlife passage. Upon closer evaluation, the appellant has not sufficiently identified <br />any specific code authority (and the Planning Commission was unable to find any), that would <br />enable such a requirement. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Appeal Issue #10: EC 9.8320(4) - The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to <br />the natural environment. The Hearings Official erred by waiving the requirement for a <br />licensed arborist on the professional design team, and by disregarding the evidence <br />provided by Jim Mehrwein, Registered Professional Forester. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />As explained in the Hearings Official's decision, "at the applicant's request, the City Planning <br />Director waived the requirement for a licensed arborist on the professional design team" <br />(Hearings Official Decision, page 36). In response to concerns raised regarding the tree <br />preservation plan, the applicant retained Kyle King, a local certified arborist, who provided a <br />report dated March 21, 2018, concluding that, in his opinion, the assessment in the applicant's <br />Tree Preservation Plan is appropriate. <br />The Hearings Official discusses the report submitted by James Mehrwein, February 27, 2018, on <br />behalf of the Neighborhood Response Committee on pages 34 and 35 of her decision. The <br />Hearings Official concludes, "while Mr. Mehrwein and surrounding neighbors would conclude <br />that the applicant could do more to preserve trees and further reduce (or eliminate) the <br />potential for windthrow, the applicant's plan to remove trees necessary for the proposed <br />development demonstrates that is has satisfied its obligation to avoid unnecessary disruption <br />or removal of those trees" (Hearings Official Decision, page 35). The Hearings Official also <br />discusses Mr. Mehrwein's assertion of negative impacts from tree removal on Hendricks Park <br />and the Ribbon Trail, and concluding that the development demonstrates compliance: "this <br />criterion [EC 9.8320(4)] relates specifically to minimizing the impact to natural features on the <br />proposed development site. Potential off-site impacts are addressed above with regard to the <br />applicable South Hills Study policies" (Hearings Official Decision, page 35). <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred by failure to ensure the applicant satisfied <br />the requirements of EC 9.8320(4) by waiving the requirement for a licensed arborist on the <br />professional design team, and by disregarding the evidence provided by Jim Mehrwein, <br />Registered Professional Forester. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 16 <br />