standards, adjustment standards (if needed) and standards review criteria (it the applicant continues to <br />propose to discharge into the trench.) With respect to the stormwater outfall for the remainder of the site, if <br />the EC 9.4930(3)(e), (g), (h), 0), storinwater design standards, adjustment review and standards review <br />criteria are met, the applicant has satisfied EC 9.8320(4)(a) as well. Finally, the hearings official concedes <br />that EC 9.4930(3)(f) and EC 9.4980(2) through (5) pen-nit restoration of wetland and riparian areas, <br />including removal of artificial berms, provided the applicant satisfies those standards. However, the <br />applicant must demonstrate that the removal of the beans somehow "restore" or "enhance" the riparian <br />corridor within the meaning of the code. 19 That demonstration has not yet been made. <br />(c) Restoration or Replacement. <br />1. For•areas not included on the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the <br />proposal mitigates, to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, the loss of <br />significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above, through <br />the restoration or replacement of natural features such as: <br />a. Planting of replacement trees within common areas; or <br />b. Re-vegetation of slopes, ridgelines, and stream corridors; or <br />c. Restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, native plant habitat, wetland <br />areas, and riparian vegetation. <br />To the extent applicable, restoration or replacement shall be in compliance <br />with the planting and replacement standards of EC 6.320. i <br />2. For areas included on the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, any loss of <br />significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above shall be <br />consistent with the acknowledged level of protection for the features: <br />With regard to the tree proposed for removal on the eastern portion of the site, staff concludes that <br />future street trees and landscaping would provide suitable replacements. With regard to the western <br />portion of the subject property, to provide the acknowledged level of protection, the proposed <br />development must comply with applicable provisions of EC 9:8320(4)(a) and (b), the Metro Plan and <br />Willakenzie Area Plan and the remaining PUD criteria and /WR Overlay standards. Those applicable <br />provisions have been previously addressed above under EC 9.8320(1), (2), and subsections (a) and (b) <br />of this criterion. As conditioned, EC 9.8320(4)(c) is satisfied. <br />"(d) Street Trees. If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of <br />those street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according to <br />the process at EC 6.305. <br />The applicant'asserts that no street tree removal is proposed or anticipated as part of the proposed <br />development and that street and utility connections at/in Gilham Road will not impact existing street <br />trees. Staff agrees. EC 9.8320(4)(d) does not apply. <br />EC 9.8320(5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance <br />with the following: <br />(a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public <br />Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below).- <br />19 As explained below, the hearings official does not agree with the applicant that the removal of the berm constitutes a <br />"realignment or reconfiguration of channels and ponds" within the meaning of EC. 9.4930(3)(a) <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 20 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page X1148 <br />