Public Comment: open record response period (ending June 22, 2016)

Page 5 June 22, 2016 9.4930(2)(k) restricts the removal of trees in the Water Resources Overlay to "hazardous trees" provided the applicant submits a "a written evaluation of each tree proposed for removal prepared by a certified arborist declaring the tree(s) to be hazardous and recommending immediate removal." (Emphasis added). As previously explained, the Applicant's arborist report does not satisfy this requirement because the arborist clearly did not conclude that the tree was "hazardous" or recommend its "immediate removal." Acknowledging these deficiencies with the arborist report, the Applicant attempted to submit a supplemental report from the arborist, Exhibit C2. As previously noted, however, the Applicant submitted Exhibit C2 after the deadline and therefore it cannot rely on this evidence. Therefore, the Applicant cannot demonstrate compliance with EC 9.4930(2)(k). 8. EC 9.8440 - Tree Preservation. The Applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the tree preservation standards set forth in EC 9.8440. EC 9.8440(2)(b) imposes strict tree preservation requirements: "The proposed project shall be designed and sited to preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible." (Emphasis added). The Applicant proposes to remove the vast majority of the significant trees located on the site, including 25 of the 31 existing trees. The Applicant generally explains why it is removing these trees, but it failed to demonstrate that it preserved the significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible and did not provide any new information with its supplemental submission. In particular, the Applicant failed to demonstrate that it is not attainable or feasible to preserve the significant trees located on the eastern boundary of the site. The Applicant claims that all of the trees along the eastern boundary must be removed to "provide adequate vehicle circulation" and for purposes of "maintaining a standard width drive aisle," but the main reason for the removal of these trees is the vehicular parking provided along the eastern boundary. Since the Applicant has surplus parking, it could preserve more trees if it eliminated some or all of the parking spaces proposed on the eastern boundary. The Applicant's claim at the hearing that they do not have excess parking is inconsistent with its own statements in the Application. The revised Application Narrative clearly states that "up to 111 parking spaces would be available" because "A total of 88 spaces are shown on the submitted site plan, and another 23 spaces within the boundaries of the McGrath's Fish House restaurant property may be available for use by guests and employees of the hotel through a shared-use agreement between the two properties." Revised Application Narrative, p.17. The Applicant also acknowledged that "EC 9.6410(3)(a) allows a 25 percent reduction to the minimum parking requirement," a reduction that is "allowed as a right of development." Revised Application Narrative, p.17. Applying this reduction, the Applicant is only required to provide 75 spaces, 36 spaces less than it is proposing. There is no question that some or all of the existing trees along the eastern boundary could be preserved if the Applicant reduced the parking by 36 spaces.