The actual pace of lot absorption is unknown without a market study analyzing sales of <br />comparable properties in the area. This is supporting documentation not available to the <br />public (or to the City staff) because the Applicant refuses to provide any estimated lot sales <br />prices and has not produced a market study for the proposed lots. The Applicant's <br />construction lender will undoubtedly require this type of study, so why not contract for it <br />now? Surely, the Applicant is not blindly entering into this process with no idea of the <br />magnitude of his holding costs or the length of his holding period. <br />At the bottom of Page 18 of 62, the Staff Report supports the Application's stated tree <br />replacement ratio of one to one for "trees in the buildable area of individual lots that are <br />removed for development. " The Staff Report indicates that this replanting program will <br />ensure that the site "remains vegetated and will provide adequate screening in the future. " <br />The Committee reiterates that this proposed ratio is woefully short and unrealistic. See <br />the Committee's discussion in the complete Response Document at its discussion of EC <br />9.8320 (10) (3), especially the discussion on Page 45. <br />The Committee presents additional photographic evidence below: <br />THIS AREA OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK <br />Page 3 <br />