are inconsistent with clear provisions that allow such development. The applicant argues that it has <br />demonstrated that its stormwater design can accommodate storm flows, and that its proposed access <br />will minimize disturbance to the riparian corridor. With respect to the materials used to construct the <br />bridge crossing, the applicant argues that the city can impose conditions that require the applicant to <br />meet building and engineering standards designed to minimize or eliminate intrusions into the <br />conservation setback. Finally, the applicant expresses surprise that staff opposes its efforts to restore <br />the banks of the corridor by removing the berm, arguing that such restoration efforts are contemplated <br />in and endorsed by EC 9.4930(3). <br />The hearings official concludes that the first four concerns identified by staff can be resolved by <br />requiring the applicant to submit a revised site plan that depicts the /WR resource site and the revised <br />conservation setback line and/or remove lots 5 and 6 from the tentative plan.18 Further, if the proposed <br />stormwater discharge design includes a discharge into the conservation area, the applicant will either <br />have to modify the design to discharge outside of the conservation area, or obtain standards review <br />approval for the discharge. <br />With respect to the tree preservation requirements under EC 9.8320(4)(b), assuming that all of the <br />existing trees are reflected on the plan sheets in the general location shown, the discrepancies between <br />the tree preservation plan and the landscape plan do not appear to be material. As shown on the March <br />26, 2008 site plan sheet S.3, all but four of the 25 trees located on site are located within the /WR <br />riparian channels and conservation setback area. The applicant is proposing to remove the four trees <br />outside of the /WR conservation area and two trees within the /WR conservation area. Given the <br />location, size, and species of the four trees outside of the /WR conservation area, and the'tree <br />preservation priorities identified in response to EC 9.8320(4), staff finds, and the hearings official <br />concurs, that the removal of these trees is justified without need for additional documentation. <br />The remaining trees and majority of their critical root zones are located within the /WR conservation <br />area, and would be afforded adequate protection by compliance with the applicable /WR standards. <br />Per the revised plan Sheet S.3 the applicant proposes to remove two willow trees per the arborist's <br />recommendations, due to extensive rot shown by fungal fruiting bodies. These trees do not appear to <br />pose a hazard given their relative location within the /WR conservation area. However, <br />EC 9.493'0(2)(c) permits removal of non-invasive and non-native trees over 5-feet if they are replaced <br />within 6 months by a native tree or shrub that will grow to a similar or greater size, height, and canopy <br />spread as the one removed. The applicant is not proposing replacement trees or enhancement measures <br />within-the vicinity of these trees. A condition of approval can be imposed to require replacement <br />consistent with EC 9.4930(2)(c). <br />With respect to the concerns regarding the clustering of activities near the riparian resource, the hearings <br />official concludes that if the /WR conservation area is properly delineated, the maximum coverage <br />standard is satisfied, and conditions are imposed to require strict adherence to EC 9.4930, the proposal will <br />adequately protect the natural resources on the site. With respect to the proposed private road crossing, <br />utility extensions and soakage trench design, the hearings officer concludes that the issues are mooted by <br />the removal of lots 5 and 6 from the PUD site plan. If the applicant seeks to establish the resource site and <br />conservation setbacks and modify the lot design, the modified lot design must satisfy stormwater design <br />" This does not mean that the applicant is prohibited from developing in the general vicinity of lots 5 and 6 in the future <br />Rather, the hearings official concludes that the applicant has not demonstrated that development west of the eastern arm of <br />the riparian corridor complies with the special development standards that apply to a Goal 5 resource site Therefore, <br />conditions of approval that preclude development on the western portion of this site under this PUD proposal are - <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 19 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1147 <br />