with the building. permit." The applicant merely states that the information was contained in the <br />stormwater report. While the stormwater report does contain significant amounts of information, <br />I do not see that it specifically contains the requirements of EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2). Absent any <br />assistance from the applicant directing me to the pertinent parts of the stormwater report to address <br />the requirements of EC 9.6792. I cannot find that the requirements have been met. <br />8. Water Resources Conservation Zone <br />The property contains a Water Resources Overlay and therefore EC 9.4930 is applicable. <br />EC 9.4930(2)(k) restricts the removal of trees in the overlay zone to "hazardous trees" provided <br />the applicant submits "a written evaluation of each tree proposed for removal prepared by a <br />certified arborist declaring the tree(s) to be hazardous and recommending immediate removal." <br />There is a 32" inch in diameter black cottonwood tree that the applicant has proposed to remove. <br />VRI argues that the applicant has not demonstrated that the tree is hazardous and meets the <br />requirements for removal. The applicant responds in its final legal argument that it will retain the <br />tree and that retention of the tree can be made a condition of approval. According to the applicant, <br />any potential removal would be subject to applicable standards in the firture. With conditions of <br />approval EC 9.4930(2)(k) can be satisfied. <br />9. Tree Preservation <br />EC 9.8440(2) provides: <br />`Proposed lots, buildings, streets, parking lots, recreation areas, and other <br />proposed uses are designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural <br />environment by addressing the following: <br />"(b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and <br />sited to preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable <br />or feasible * * <br />The application proposes to remove 25 of the 31 significant trees on the property. A large <br />number of these trees are on the eastern portion of the property along Delta Highway. VRI argues <br />that the applicant made no effort preserve significant trees, let alone to the greatest degree <br />attainable of feasible. According to VRI, the applicant could preserve more existing trees if it <br />reduced the amount of parking spaces. The applicant is proposing less than the maximum amount <br />of parking allowed but more than minimum. Initially, the applicant argued that it had designed the <br />development to preserve significant trees, but now the applicant argues that the application does <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 16-1/SR 16-1/ARB 16-3) 12 <br />