My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Testimony Through 02-20-2026
>
OnTrack
>
PDF
>
2025
>
PDF 25-01
>
Public Testimony Through 02-20-2026
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2026 4:06:26 PM
Creation date
3/2/2026 4:06:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDF
File Year
25
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Braewood Hills 3rd Addition
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
2/23/2026
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> Comments of Keri Green <br /> PDF-25-01/SDR 25-02 <br />____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> 2 <br />Throughout previous Braewood Hills planning actions, going back to 1996, the city required that every <br />tree on the existing landscape, pre-development, be inventoried. The applicant retained the services of <br />arborists to assess the health of existing trees, pre- and post-development. By 2006, arborists were <br />advising new residents to remove dead and dying trees that had been impacted by the buildout of the <br />neighborhood. Reference June 27 letter from Kyle W. King, Certified Arborist, to a Blacktail Street <br />resident: <br /> <br />“At your request, I inspected the Douglas fir tree on the right side of your house. It appears to be <br />in serious decline. The needles are quite sparse and there is little indication of new growth. The <br />several fir trees around it are in similar condition. Many of the firs on the downhill side of <br />Blacktail Street near your lot have died and most of them exhibit serious stress. <br /> <br />The street and home construction has probably changed the natural water course and has affected <br />the trees’ health. Logging operations that allowed lots to be created in the first place have <br />exposed these trees to much more heat by removing much of the forest originally surrounding <br />them – this also caused further stress. <br /> <br />Whatever the causes, in my opinion, your tree will most likely die, along with its neighbors, <br />withing the year and probably sooner. I think your tree should be removed now…” <br /> <br />To ensure preservation of the centuries old heritage oaks and Douglas fir trees that line the south <br />side of Videra Creek in city-owned Videra Park, the city should require the applicant to conduct a <br />full survey and mapping of the wetland and Videra Creek within the Park to ensure that <br />conservation zone codes are met. <br /> <br />It is possible that the applicant’s proposed extension of Randy Lane will create deleterious impacts to the <br />root zones of the existing trees. Given that the city, by its own admission, neglected to apply tree <br />preservation standards to this PUD application, the buildout creates a risk to the trees of Videra Park. <br />Reference: Hearings Official Decision Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3) September 5, <br />2024, Page 8: <br /> <br />The written staff report also explained that, subject to some potential exceptions, because the <br />property is included in the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the Tree Preservation and <br />Removal Standards at EC 9.6885 would apply directly at the time of future development <br />depending on the timing and scope of tree removal, lot size, and other factors that may require a <br />separate tree removal permit under the requirements of EC Chapter 6. However, at the public <br />hearing on the application, the staff explained that the staff report was in error and that because of <br />changes to the City’s clear and objective standards, the acknowledged Goal 5 resources that have <br />no specific environmental protections in place are no longer subject to any protections. As staff <br />stated during the public hearing: <br /> <br />“Unfortunately, the entire site is identified as a Goal 5 resource due to its inclusion on the <br />Scenic Sites Working Paper, which was adopted as a Goal 5 resource. Unlike the <br />protections create for wetlands and other riparian resources, there were no specific <br />environmental protections put in place for areas identified on the scenic working papers. <br />As an outcome, we are left with a development project that can be approved without any <br />specific tree preservation, exception for the protected stream and runs across the property. <br />Given these facts, we believe we lack the authority to require tree preservation on the <br />majority of the property through this PUD process and at the time of building permit.”
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.