• Consolidating access into one crossing <br />• Engineering the crossing to reduce impacts <br />• Utilizing the location of an existing gap in vegetation <br />• Proposing a no-build conservation zone (e.g. Tract A) to protect the resource that will be <br />incorporated into the developments CC&Rs <br />• Designing utilities to avoid additional disturbance <br />• Leaving existing fencing in the Preservation Area to protect the resource from encroachment <br />and <br />• Constructing a low fence to establish the boundary of the setback area (e.g. the keystone wall) <br />Staff argues that the proposed PUD is not designed in accordance with applicable /WR requirements or <br />designed to minimize impacts by the natural environment by avoiding unnecessary disruption or <br />removal of attractive natural features and vegetation and by designing and siting infrastructure and <br />uses to assure preservation of natural features and to prevent soil erosion or flood hazard, as required <br />by this criterion. Staff asserts that, contrary to the applicant's assertions, the available evidence <br />generally indicates that the proposed PUD will facilitate disruption and removal of vegetation and <br />attractive natural features because: <br />The applicant does not provide sufficient information regarding the extent of the Goal 5 site <br />boundary in relation to the proposed lot boundaries and improvements to demonstrate <br />compliance with respect to the location of the proposed keystone wall, anticipated drainage <br />trench locations on Lots 5 and 6 as well as those features for which the applicant is proposing <br />SDR approval. <br />• The proposed configuration does not satisfy natural resource protection standards addressed <br />elsewhere in this report, including the 33% lot area standard at EC 9.8320(11)(a). <br />The applicant has not provided sufficient information to reliably delineate the <br />construction/developable area on lots 4-7. The size and dimensions of this area are not <br />sufficient to accommodate the 2-3,000 square foot dwellings the applicant indicates this PUD is <br />designed to accommodate, proposed shared access and drainage facilities, required parking, and <br />a yard area within the keystone walls in keeping with reasonable homeowner expectations for a <br />single-family residential development within the proposed PUD and surrounding <br />neighborhood. <br />• The identified developable area and associated fill and the keystone block wall on Lots 5 and 6 <br />extends into the protected /WR conservation area, which is not permitted pursuant to <br />EC 9.4930. <br />The site plans include incomplete and conflicting information regarding the location and <br />number of trees within the /WR conservation area and the revised site plan Sheet S.3 submitted <br />on March 26, 2008 identifies two trees for removal within the /WR area, but the application <br />materials do not demonstrate that these trees are invasive or that removal within the /WR <br />conservation area is otherwise consistent with EC 9.4930. Staff acknowledges that removal is <br />permitted under certain circumstances with required replanting that is not proposed, but could <br />be conditioned. <br />• The application materials and site plans do not clearly define the proposed protection measures <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) <br />Page 17 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1145 <br />