Turning to EC 9.4920(1)(c)[1][b], the applicant asserts that natural conditions prevail, because the <br />majority of the site has similar topography, and the ditch has native riparian vegetation. The hearings <br />official does not agree. The site has been altered by agricultural activities and by dredging. The depth <br />of the water channel has not been shaped by water. Rather it has been excavated to accommodate water <br />flow. Therefore the hearings official relies on the first subclause to "characterize" the "top of high <br />bank." For Segment A-A depicted on the applicant's March 19, 2008 site plan, the "top of high bank" <br />is located at the lower bank, consistent with the applicant's identification. V With respect to Section B- <br />B, the top of high bank is located at-crest of the berm, where it levels off from the steep grade at the <br />bottom of the ditch. <br />D. Identification of the Conservation Area <br />--.As the findings set out above conclude, the applicant's proposed conservation setback does not include <br />the entirety of the resource site, and- does not fully depict the correct conservation setback from the of <br />high bank. This modified identification of the resource site and conservation setback means that the <br />applicant has not demonstrated by substantial evidence that proposed Lots 5 and 6 can be developed in <br />accordance with city standards. <br />It may be that the applicant will seek to clarify the boundaries of the Goal 5 resource and delineate a <br />new conservation setback based on the removal of the berm. If that is the case, then the applicant will <br />first have to show that the removal of the berm is allowed as an riparian "enhancement" under <br />EC 9.4930(3)(f) and is not prohibited "grading" under EC-9-.4930(4)(f). Then, the modified "top of <br />bank" can form the starting point for the conservation setback. Until a permit is granted to remove the <br />berm, the "top of bank" must include the berm. <br />Because the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed layout is consistent with /WR standards, <br />the application cannot be approved as proposed. However, under the city's approval standards and <br />ORS 197.522, the hearings official can impose conditions of approval that will ensure that the 'approval <br />standards are satisfied. Here, the applicant has three choices: (1) designate the entire area west of the <br />eastern arm of the riparian corridor as a conservation tract; (2) identify the Goal 5 resource and <br />conservation setback consistent with this decision and propose a modified lot layout that conforms to <br />the applicable development standard; or (3) apply for a modification of the /WR resource area or Goal <br />5 Plan map. The final PUD plan shall reflect one of these options. <br />E. Other Development Standards <br />With regard to EC 9.8320(4)(a)(2), the applicant addresses the proposed crossing, Tract A, and Lots 4 <br />through 7 because they include the resource and/or setback area. The applicant maintains that the <br />proposal avoids unnecessary disruption or removal of attractive natural features and vegetation <br />through: <br />• Limiting development impacts-by oversizing the lots <br />17 Staff does not agree that Segment A-A accurately depicts the features of all slopes within the riparian corridor segment <br />that traverses the property. Staff testified that the slope does not resemble the slope for the area observed during a site visit. <br />The applicant responds that the site was covered with waist-high grass, and that the location and contours of the segment . <br />could not be observed from the bank: The hearings official agrees with the applicant that staff's observations during a site <br />visit are not sufficient to undermine the applicant's cross-section depiction of Segment A-A However, the hearings official <br />does agree with staff that the applicant has not demonstrated that the entirety of the corridor has slopes that mimic either <br />Segment A-A or Segment B-B. <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page'16_ <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) 1 Page 1144 <br />