RE: Tree Felling & Preservation in Rest Haven CUP Masterplan (CU 95-2)

File Memorandum: References to Tree Felling and Preservation in Rest-Haven CUP (CU 95-2) August 28, 2002 Page 5 of 17 Again, the focus here is upon preserving the buffer trees along the perimeter of the site. C. EC 9 702(c): "The proposed development will be consistenet with applicable adopted neighborhood refinement plans special area studies, and functional plans." In assessing this criterion, the Hearings Official addressed several of the issues that later emerged concerning the tree felling permit. The Hearings Official explained: "The area is located within the boundaries of the South Hills Study. The knoll existing on the southern portion of the site rises to an elevation greater than 701 feet which would be of significance if this proposal was one for a housing development. The Development Standards section of the Purpose Statements and Recommendations of the South Hills Study requires planned unit development procedures to address a number of purposes pertaining to preservation of open space and vegetation and minimizing visual impact. Those standards, however are directed at `major developments' described as `development in excess of minor partitions.' This standard section also at page 6 indicates a limited meaning of the term `developments' in qualifying that term as `planned unit developments or subdivisions.' If the South Hills Study was applicable, a case could be made that more vegetation should be preserved, particularly on the knoll in the southern portion of the property. There is no basis, however, for that restriction to be applied to a cemetery use." Rec. 186. Again, several points should be noted about the above quoted passage. First, the Hearings Official implied that a significant amount of vegetation would be removed from the site when he noted that, "if the South Hills Study was applicable, a case could be made that more vegetation should be preserved." He then particularly noted the knoll on the southern portion of the property, implying that a significant number of trees above the 701 foot elevation level would be removed. Even though this analysis falls under the criteria examining applicable refinement plans, it still indicates that the Hearings Official was aware of the degree of tree removal that would occur on the knoll. The Hearings Official's analysis is also consistent with the findings of facts that concluded that the project would consist largely of cemetery lawn with a number of significant trees to remain in the interior of the property. As is noted below, the site plans for the proposal show, in detail that identifies individual trees by size and type, groupings of significant trees on the knoll, surrounded by open lawn space. The second point to note is that the Hearings Official described the elevated portion of the site in the southern part of the subject property as a `knoll.' The use of the terns knoll is in stark contrast to the term `hill' that the City later attached to that same geographic feature in the tree felling permits. That raises the issue of how that geographic feature was understood at the time the CUP was approved and the CUP Agreement was entered into by the City and the applicant. Further, it raises the issue of how the parties to the agreement understood how the tree felling permit criteria might apply to the subject property, given that hills are afforded additional protection under EC 6.320(2), but knolls are not.