(1) Avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of attractive natural <br />features and vegetation, and <br />(2) Avoid conversion of natural resource areas designated in the <br />Metropolitan Area General Plan to urban uses when alternative <br />locations on the property are suitable for development as otherwise <br />permitted. <br />b. Proposed buildings, road, and other uses are designed and sited to <br />assure preservation of significant on-site vegetation, topographic <br />features, and other unique and worthwhile natural features, and to <br />prevent soil erosion or flood hazard. <br />(b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and sited to preserve <br />significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, with trees having <br />the following characteristics given the highest priority for preservation: <br />1. Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base <br />zone or special area zone designation and other applicable approval criteria; <br />2. Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual, <br />isolated trees subject to windthrow; <br />3. Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or shade <br />expansive areas of pavement; <br />4. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses; <br />5. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback <br />areas; <br />6. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors; <br />7. Trees with significant habitat value; - <br />8. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets; <br />9. Trees located along a water feature; <br />10. Heritage trees. <br />The application includes a February 2008 Natural Features Assessment prepared by Mike Shippey, Coyote <br />Creek Environmental Services, and an updated August 2007 Wetland Delineation'Report prepared by <br />Terra,Science, Inc. for the subject property and the two large tax lots to the north. A Department of State <br />Lands (DSL) concurrence letter has been issued for the delineation. The site plans include a separate Tree <br />Preservation Plan sheet,prepared by Poage Engineering and a Landscape Plan sheet prepared by <br />Dougherty Landscape Architects (sheets 5.3, revised Sheet S.3 (dated March 25, 2008) and LA. 1, <br />respectively). The three sheets provide conflicting lnfortnatlon regarding the location of trees within the <br />/WR conservation area. 8 Available information also includes the complete 2003 Wetland Delineation <br />Report prepared by Terra Science, Inc. <br />The project site is largely a fallow field. The majority of the site is not located within a Goal 5 area <br />and is therefore subject to the standards set out in EC 9.8320(4)(a)(1). EC 9.8320(4)(a)(1) requires <br />significant natural features not included in the Goal 5 inventory be preserved to the greatest degree <br />attainable or feasible. Other than significant trees, which are further addressed below, there is no <br />evidence that rare plants, prominent topographic features or habitat for endangered species exist on the <br />site., The delineations and natural features assessment evaluates the existence of significant vegetation, <br />habitat for rare animal species, topographic features and wetlands and do not identify any resources of <br />s In a July 23, 2008 letter from Bill Kloos, the applicant concedes that the maps are inconsistent. The applicant explains <br />that the Tree Preservation Plan (revised S.3) correctly depicts the trees to be preserved, and their associated critical root <br />zones. See Julv 23. 2008 hearme Exhibit 17. twee 4. <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) <br />Page 10 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) - Page 1138 <br />