December 11, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

13 of 38 sheets Page 49 to 52 of 100 01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM 49 I thought you answered, in terms of Council1 Q. President Rutherford's question, I thought you just said2 once you see everything's looking the same you stop3 counting. That would imply you stopped using some of4 the site and only used a few?5 No, we stopped at 22 because to do the 5 percent6 A. we would have to do the 55, but after doing 22 we run it7 by the mean, we don't have to keep going to 55.8 That's what I wanted to clarify.9 Q. I wasn't clear -- I probably wasn't clear on10 A. that.11 Okay.12 Q. So you did 22?13 Yes.14 A. Good.15 Q. So the 212 figure is based on the calculation for16 22?17 Correct. That's correct.18 A. Great. Thank you.19 Q. Now, the calculations, if we -- well, I think we20 have the number, but the calculations would be 84,02721 trees on the site from the 2010 study and your study22 indicated 25,440 trees. Now, obviously one differential23 on the two studies is they were including trees between24 2 and 4 inches and you started at 4 inches, correct?25 50 Because trees -- a plant under 4 inches is not a1 A. tree.2 You did not include trees between 2 and 4 inches,3 Q. is that correct?4 Because anything under 4 inches is not a tree. I5 A. did not include plants under 4 inches because that's6 statistically invalid.7 Now, I understand you say it's statistically8 Q. invalid and that's fine. Now, this survey from 2010 was9 actually done by the developer who's here today on this10 application, correct?11 I don't know who did the survey.12 A. It's presented by the same developer in 2010 as13 Q. is here today, correct?14 I believe so. It's my understanding.15 A. Now, a developer, without any criticism of16 Q. developers, obviously in presenting a major plan has17 some incentive, if possible, to downplay the number of18 trees being lost?19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let the record show Mr.20 Cardoza joined the board and that Council President21 Rutherford joined earlier.22 COMMISSIONER CARDOZA: I've been listening23 the entire evening.24 MS. McGOVERN: Listening in the car?25 51 MR. CARDOZA: Yes.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.2 I will withdraw the other questions. I'll move3 Q. onto other questions. I'll use it later.4 What I'd like to ask you is this, aside from your5 criticism of this study in 2010, and due to the fact you6 don't have any actual documentation from it, are you7 able to

uestions. I'll use it later.4 What I'd like to ask you is this, aside from your5 criticism of this study in 2010, and due to the fact you6 don't have any actual documentation from it, are you7 able to offer any other explanation as to why they have8 60,000 more trees than you have?9 It's statistically error flawed, so I can't tell10 A. you that.11 Well --12 Q. I haven't seen the calculation.13 A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: They don't14 have 60,000 more trees. So it's 2 inches and greater15 and then 6 inches and greater. So the 2 inches and16 greater include the 20,000 number.17 MR. AFRAN: I don't think so. I think it's18 two categories, separated into 6 and 6 and higher.19 MR. ALPER: It's 2 to 6.20 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: It's 40,00021 more trees.22 MR. AFRAN: I noticed that, but when I read23 it, it looks like they created two categories.24 Minimally there's 40,000 more trees, fair to say?25 52 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Yes, sir.1 Now, if they're right and it's 40,000 more or2 Q. 60,000 more on average, based on the average, that means3 that your calculation of 6,390 trees to be removed would4 be wrong, right?5 You're asking me a hypothetical. If somebody's6 A. right, somebody's wrong. I can't argue a hypothetical.7 Well, let's assume for example that there are8 Q. 40,000 more trees or 60,000 more trees, we know at least9 40,000 from this study on this chart. If they're right10 that means the figure that you relied on, 6,390 trees to11 be removed is wrong.12 Again, you're asking -- sorry. You're asking a13 A. hypothetical and hypothetically if one is right, one is14 wrong. Their's is right, mine is wrong. Mine is right,15 their's is wrong.16 Now, you would agree that a developer, I'm not17 Q. criticizing developers, but generally they have an18 interest in downplaying the number of trees destroyed,19 is that fair to say?20 I can't speak for what a developer would or21 A. wouldn't do.22 Well, it's good public relations if a developer23 Q. destroys fewer trees than more, that's agreed?24 It's a fair argument.25 A.