The Staff Report attempts to bolster its claim that existing trees will continue to provide good <br />screening for the project by stating that the six lots with existing structures have few trees, <br />and that "it is anticipated that most of these (structures) would remain, so it is unlikely that <br />trees would be removed from these lots. " <br />(Emphasis added.) <br />This statement is questionable. Lot 4 contains a vacant 70 year old ranch house that sits on a <br />large fairly level lot. The existing structure is not saleable or rentable without a substantial <br />and costly remodel. Plus, this large lot is highly marketable. Even though the site plan <br />indicates that this "structure is to remain," why would the Applicant not eventually level the <br />existing structure and sell this lot for a sizeable profit? <br />The same general situation is true for Lots 33 and 34. Three extremely small single family <br />attached units (apartments) are of poor quality and currently exist on what is now the same <br />tax lot as the large house that fronts onto Capital Drive. These 3 units (plus the large house <br />fronting Capital Drive) are currently being rented in violation of EC 9.2751 Special <br />Development Standards for Table 9.2750 (17) (a) (7). The 8/22/17 Application proposes <br />that the building now containing the 3 apartments be divided into two single family attached <br />units with a lot line to be drawn down the middle of the existing structure. <br />Of note is that the 8/22/17 Application does not ask for a set back variance for these two <br />proposed lots (Lots 33 & 34). <br />The committee believes that each of the three units is now rented. The City is attempting to <br />bring these units back into code compliance by requiring the Applicant to immediately <br />restore the structure to ONE single family dwelling. Why would the Applicant spend <br />substantial capital to do this only to "reverse" the process and divide the structure back into <br />two residences? This doesn't make sense. The financially sensible choice for the Applicant <br />is to demolish these substandard units, create two lots as part of the proposed development, <br />then sell the land for a profit for two smaller single family detached homes. <br />Therefore, it is highly likely that 50% of the homes currently on the property (3 of 6) will be <br />leveled and the lots sold. This means that trees on these lots will be categorized as <br />"discretionary" and could easily be removed for construction activity. <br />Additionally, the Staff Report at the bottom of Page 18 states that "it is likely that these lots <br />will develop sporadically over time and any tree removal will also occur sporadically. " <br />The Committee questions this statement. True, lots may be slower to absorb because of their <br />anticipated high sales prices and unknown future economic climates; however, if the <br />economy is strong, what is to prevent a "spec" builder from purchasing 4 or 5 contiguous lots <br />and building 4 or 5 contiguous residences at one time? ("Economies of scale" makes it less <br />costly to build homes simultaneously rather than one at a time.) <br />Page 2 <br />