Public Comments - Laserfiche WebLink

Page II September 6, 2016 to remove these significant trees in order to accommodate excess parking.3 Third, the Applicant's alleged evidence of compliance is nothing more than its attorney's explanation of why additional trees cannot be preserved. But the Applicant's attorney is not qualified to provide an opinion regarding the inability to preserve more trees. His explanation is simply argument, not actual "evidence" to support a finding of compliance. The Applicant's attorney makes a passing reference to the arborist reports in the record as supporting evidence, but neither of these reports say anything about the need to remove the trees along the eastern border due to the fire access driveway. That is why the Applicant makes only a passing reference to these arborist reports and provides no citation or reference to the relevant sections of these reports. The Hearings Official correctly determined that the Applicant failed to adequately demonstrate compliance with the tree preservation standards set forth in EC 9.8840(2)(b). As the Hearings Official noted, the tree preservation standards require at a minimum that the Applicant demonstrate that it made some attempt to preserve significant trees and must review the significant trees to be removed against the priority characteristics in EC 9.8840(2)(b). The Applicant failed to demonstrate that it did either of these requirements, specifically with respect to the trees on the eastern boundary of the property. Therefore, the Planning Commission should affirm the Hearings Official's decision. 3 The revised Application Narrative states that "up to 11 l 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.