Vegetation on the eastern portion of the subject property nearest the river consists of a cover <br />crop of non-native short grasses, weedy forbs, and scattered and isolated fruit and fir trees. The <br />location, species, and size of existing trees are shown on the on the applicant's topographical <br />survey (see Attachment D-4). The eastern portion of the site, closest to the riparian area to the <br />east, has few trees. The trees closest to the east property line include a row of fruit and filbert <br />trees along the south property boundary, which the applicant proposes to preserve, and a row of <br />cedars along the north property boundary. <br />Most of the northerly cedars are on adjacent lands to the north; the applicant proposes to <br />preserve these trees, which is further conditioned in the PUD evaluation at EC 9.8320(3) and <br />incorporated by reference. A 26-inch diameter cedar on the subject property, near the north <br />property line, however, is proposed for removal to accommodate the location of Building 1. (The <br />applicant's tree removal and preservation plan is provided on Sheet L3.) The cedar to be removed <br />is about 50 feet from the east property line. <br />As for proposed landscaping between the development and the river, the applicant's landscape <br />plan (Sheet L2) shows the eastern portion of the site as being planted with drought-tolerant native <br />meadow grasses. The eastern portion of the site will primarily be open space, with the closest <br />building being about 20 feet from the east property line (i.e. Building 2, abutting the north <br />property line). Buildings to the south (i.e. Buildings 4 and 7) have greater setbacks from. the east <br />property line, by approximate 30 and 60 feet, respectively. As such, the development will provide <br />the maximum possible open space and vegetation between the activity and the river. Additional <br />landscaping along the east property boundary does not appear to be warranted, given the existing <br />site conditions as an open meadow. <br />Based on the available information and the preceding findings; the above criterion is met. <br />EC 9.8815[2L: To the greatest possible degree, necessary and adequate public access will <br />be provided to and along the river by appropriate legal means. <br />The applicant's plans show pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the development via <br />interconnected paths between the buildings and bicycle parking areas. The applicant notes that there <br />is an existing worn path along the north property line, between the Oakleigh Lane roadway arid the <br />east property line, abutting the City parklands. The applicant proposes to keep this path open, but <br />does not explicitly show any dedications to the public to enable continued access. Right-of-way <br />dedication is required over this area, to enable continued public access, pursuant to the concurrent <br />PUD approval criterion EC 9. 8320(5), the findings and conditions of which are incorporated by <br />reference. <br />The applicant also proposes to stub a soft path to the southeast corner of the site. The segment of the <br />internal sidewalk system that is located between the most easterly building (a bike barn) and the east <br />.property line is shown as having a graveled, rather than a paved, surface. This unimproved surface is <br />appropriate because there are no plans or funding for construction of a public path on the City <br />property at this location. Residents of the development will naturally want to walk across the City <br />parkland toward the river. Parks staff state no objections or concerns. This proposed path at least <br />Staff Report: Oakleigh Meadows Cohousing September 2013 Page 34 <br />HO Agenda - Page 41 1021 <br />