trunks. <br />1166 <br />The location, species, and size of the trees on the subject property are also shown in the applicant's <br />topographical survey, which confirms that most of the trees are fruit and filbert trees that are less <br />than eightinches in diameter. Most of those trees are proposed for- removal. The larger fruit trees <br />along the southeast property line are proposed for preservation, which complies with the above <br />approval criterion as these trees provide screening and buffering functions. The applicant also <br />proposes to preserve a group of ash trees, west of Building 7, and a cluster of young cedar trees <br />between Buildings 3 and 4. Preservation of these trees complies with the above criterion because they <br />are stands'of trees, rather than isolated individuals. The most significant tree being preserved on the <br />subject property is a 14-inch fir located in the southwest portion ofthe'property. The applicant's plans <br />delineate the critical root zone (CRZ) of the tree to show that it can survive construction impacts, <br />which are primarily the surrounding vehicle use areas, rather than buildings.: <br />The applicant's plans also show the CRZ_of three fir trees on the adjacent property to the west to show <br />that the proposed parking garages and concrete wall will not require their removal. As discussed <br />previously, at EC 9.8320(3), the applicant has not delineated the CRZ for the. row of cedars.abutting the <br />north property line. Under the screening criterion at EC 9.8320(3), staff recommended a condition for <br />the final PUD plans to show the CRZ of the row of cedars abutting the north property line, with either <br />supporting documentation from a certified arborist that the trees could. survive construction impacts <br />or movingBuilding 2 farther to the south, outside the CRZ. Based on the condition established at EC <br />9.8320(3),:which is incorporated by reference, approval criterion EC: 9:8320(4) is also satisfied. <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 the <br />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 offish 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. <br />The area is not included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The applicant proposes to <br />mitigate-the removal of four trees by planting approximately 26 new trees within the common areas. <br />Based on these findings, this criterion is met. <br />(d) Street Trees. If the proposal includes removal of any street. tree(s), removal of those <br />street tree(s)'has been approved, ,or approved with conditions. according to the <br />process at EC 6.305. <br />No street,trees are proposed for removal. • <br />Staff Report: Oakleigh Meadows Cohousing' September2013 Page 11 <br />HO Agenda - Page 18 <br />