Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 123 <br /> and by establishing that in an urban context, the size �f the crown of the <br /> Tree and the and not its girth or other Forest Service indices of vulue are <br /> the relevant standard to assess the aesthetic, social/community, and <br /> environmental of the Tree. <br /> b. Applying these more appropriate valuation standard.s, Appellants would <br /> also have demnnstrated thut, $3,190, the appraised vulue of the Tree, <br /> substantially understates the real value of the Tree to the corrtmunity, und, <br /> in the event that the Tree is removed, enables the Applicants to avoid <br /> paying a fair amount into the City's tree fund tn cnmpensate,f'or the <br /> destruction of the Tree. <br /> c. By referencing the first and second arborist reports, Appellants would <br /> have also demonstrated the obvious conflict of interest that arises when <br /> property owner.s directly pay urbarists to prnduce legally mandated <br /> reports upon which the Planning Department relies that are intended to be <br /> factual, neutral, and without hias, but which, in,fact, provide analysis and <br /> T•ecommendations that generally benefit the property owners. <br /> Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator did consider the value of the tree to the <br /> environment and neighborhood, consistent with Architectural Standard E, and as a <br /> result conditioned approval of the project and required replacement of the lost natural <br /> features (as provided in Conditions 8 and 9). In approving the project as proposed by <br /> the applicant, the Zoning Administrator relied upon the Arborist Report, which identified <br /> problems with the structural integrity of the tree, the health of the tree and valued the <br /> tree as supported by the Appraisal Worksheet (see final 2 pages of Attachment 14). The <br /> Arbortist Report was prepared by Walter Levison (Attachment 14), a Certified Arborist <br /> who is a registered member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and a <br /> member of the International Society of Arboriculture. The recommendation for removal <br /> was also peer reviewed by the City's Urban Forestry Specialist prior to the Zoning <br /> Administrator rendering a decision. Furthermore, the appellants were provided the <br /> opportunity to submit additional Arborist Report(s) for consideration by staff during the <br /> review process, but did not do so. As such, the Zoning Administrator rendered a <br /> decision on the information available in the administrative record. <br /> p. 4 Conclusion of Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: <br /> (c) to insure that vital informativn prnvided hy the arborists about the <br /> Tree, upon which the Planning Depurtment relied in making its <br /> determination about the Tree, was genuinely accurate and unbiased. <br /> Staff Response: The Planning Department did not err in relying on the Arborist Reports <br /> submitted by the applicant. As provided above, the Planning Department reviewed the <br /> Arborist Report, obtained a peer review by the City Urban Forestry Specialist, a <br /> standard City practice, and offered the appellants an opportunity to submit additional <br /> reports. There was no indication that the report contained inaccuracies. <br /> 2 <br />