limited development west of the ditch" and by a single stream crossing in a location largely void of <br />vegetation. <br />This policy is directed to local government and does not apply to individual development proposals. To <br />the extent the policy does impose a review standard, the hearings official agrees with the applicant that the <br />city's /PD and /WR overlays implement the policy, and compliance with those criteria ensures consistency <br />with Policy C.21. <br />Staff asserts that two natural resource-related policies are also potentially relevant. The first, Policy E.2 of <br />the Environmental Design Element of the Metro Plan, page III-E-3 (Policy E.2), provides: <br />"Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainageways, shall be protected and retained to <br />the maximum extent practicable, considering the economic, social, environmental, and energy <br />consequences in the design and construction of urban developments. Landscaping shall be utilized <br />to enhance distinctive natural features." <br />The second, Environmental Design Element Policy E.4 (Policy E.4) provides: "Public and private facilities <br />shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and <br />neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity." The applicant responds that these two Metro <br />Plan policies do not apply to the proposed PUD because they are not set out in EC 9.9500.4 <br />Pursuant to statutory provisions for limited land use decisions, the city has adopted into its zoning and <br />development code certain plan policies that apply to subdivision, partition and site review applications. <br />Those policies are set out in EC 9.9500, and pertinent decisional criteria refer to those,policies. See e.g., <br />EC 9.8515(4)(subdivision must be "consistent with the property's designation in the Metro Plan and <br />applicable adopted plan policies as reflected in the sections beginning at EC 9.9500.") Unlike the approval <br />criteria for limited land use applications, EC 9.8320(1) requires that the PUD be "consistent with <br />applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan." Those policies are not limited to the policies set out in <br />EC 9.9500. Therefore, the hearings official agrees with staff that the noted policies apply to the proposed <br />PUD. <br />Turning to the merits, the Gilham Creek drainage channels and associated riparian vegetation are listed <br />as a Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Habitat Site (E76) on the adopted Goal 5 inventory. The Goal 5 <br />resource is a "significant natural feature" as that term is used in Policy E.2 and, as suggested in <br />testimony, is a desirable feature in the local neighborhood area. Therefore, the proposal must protect <br />preserve and enhance the natural feature to ensure consistency with the policies. The applicant asserts <br />that the proposal does protect the riparian area, by removing the berm, and installing native planting <br />within the conservation corridor. Staff disagrees, arguing the proposed PUD conflicts with applicable <br />natural resource related criteria and standards in part because it: 1) concentrates the smallest <br />development site near the resource and includes features that will encourage encroachment; 2) includes <br />lots with conservation setback areas and creates lots that include more conservation area that is - <br />permitted by code; 3) proposes development prohibited in the adopted resource site boundary and /WR <br />conservation area; 4) seeks flexibility through the PUD (to waive frontage requirements for Lots 5 and <br />6) to facilitate unnecessary removal and disruption of natural resources, and 5) includes a culvert <br />crossing that necessitates unnecessary removal and disruption of natural resources. <br />4 The applicant argues that the city cannot apply these policies to this proposal because staff did not apply them to the <br />Westmoreland PUD proposal. It may be that the city erred in failing to include the policies in prior decisions, however, that <br />error does not mean that the city is precluded from considering those policies in the evaluation of this application if they are <br />otherwise applicable <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 5 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1133 <br />