not need to be designed to preserve significant trees. According to the applicant, "[a]ll of the Site <br />Review standards have to do with how the allowed use is arranged or designed on the site, not <br />what the allowed use should be." <br />While I do not agree with VRI that the applicant must reduce the amount of parking spaces <br />proposed for the application, I also do not agree with the applicant that it can just determine <br />whatever development it wants with whatever associated parking and infrastructure and then <br />remove most or all of the significant trees because that it is necessary for the desired level of use. <br />EC 9.8440(2) directs that a project be "designed and sited" in order to preserve significant trees to <br />the greatest degree attainable or feasible. That implies that the design of the proposed development <br />must at least attempt to preserve significant trees. EC 9.8440(2)(B) continues to list 10 <br />characteristics to be given priority for preservation. At the least, an application must make an <br />attempt to review the significant trees to be removed against the priority characteristics for <br />significant trees to be preserved. In the present case, the applicant did not make any such attempt. <br />A number of the priority characteristics would appear to be relevant. EC 9.8440()-)(B)((2) <br />prioritizes "[t]rees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual isolated <br />trees subject to windthrow." EC 9.8440(2)(B)(5) prioritizes "[t]rees located along the perimeter of <br />the lot(s) and within building setback areas." EC 9.8440(2)(b)(8) prioritizes "[t]rees adjacent to <br />public parks, open space and streets." The trees along Delta Highway would appear to fall within <br />these prioritized categories. The applicant merely determined what type of development specifics <br />it wanted and proposed to remove the necessary trees to accomplish the desired result. While an <br />applicant is not required to design alternative designs that preserve more significant trees just to <br />demonstrate such plans are not attainable or feasible, an applicant must make some effort to <br />preserve significant trees and if they cannot then explain why such trees cannot be preserved. EC <br />9.8440(2) is not satisfied. <br />10. Willakenzie Area Plan Policies <br />EC 9.8815(4) provides that in areas subject to the Willakenzie Area Plan (WAP) the <br />development must conform to the WAP's use management considerations. The WAP lists nine <br />use management standards, and the staff report explains how those standards are complied with. <br />VRI argues that the application does not comply with WAP Commercial Area Design Policy 10, <br />7 if an opponents submitted an alternative plan that preserved more significant trees then an applicant would he <br />required to rebut such a plan. <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 16-1/SR 16-1/ARB 16-3) 13 <br />