residentsintheneighborhoods,aswellasinthecityatlarge,hasbeenoneofourprimary <br />concernsarguedthroughoutourreviewoftheApplication.Requirementsfortheprotectionand <br />preservationofirreplaceableurbannaturalresourcesrunthroughouttheCodes.Seeespecially <br />ourcommentsunder:EC9.8300(1)(d)“preservationofexistingnaturalresources”;EC <br />9.8320(1),(4)“minimizeimpactstothenaturalenvironment”;(6)“soilerosion,slope <br />failure”;(8)“usablerecreation”;(10)(k)“proposednoncompliance.” <br />Regarding,itsrequestsfor“noncompliance,”theapplicationstates: <br />“inclusionoftheconversation\[sic“conservation”\]areaswithintheindividuallotspreserves <br />naturalareasandprovidesamultitudeofopportunitiestoenhancehabitatareas.... <br />conservationareaswillalsoprovidewildlifecorridorsforspeciessuchasdeer,birds,grey <br />squirrels,andmore.”(p.60) <br />Thereisnoevidencepresentedthathabitatwouldbeenhancedifexistingforestedslopeswere <br />clearedforresidentialhousinglotsandfencingwereallowedbetweenlotsandatlotboundaries <br />adjacenttotheRibbonTrail. <br />TheForester’sReportdetailstheimpactsontheenvironmentfromharvestingthetreesproposed <br />tobecut:adiscernablevoidintheforestcanopy,anincreaseinthelikelihoodofslopefailure, <br />andavulnerabilityforwindthrowanddamageforremainingtreesadjacenttoandonthesite. <br />Seriousandirreversibleimpactswouldresultfromclearingthesite,althoughsomeareasareset <br />asideasreservesorconservationareasduetotheirsteepslopes.Theenvironmentalquality <br />wouldbeadverselyimpactedfromharvestingthetrees,astheforesterstates:“theirremovalwill <br />produce,ineffect,theconditionsofasmallclearcut”(SeeForester’sReportAttachmentH). <br />Moreover,thereisnofeasibleestimateofhowmanymoretreeswouldbecutasindividuallots <br />werebuiltout.Althoughnumbersremainimprecise(duetoApplicationSupplements),we <br />estimatecuttingisproposedforbetween43%and51%ofmorethan926treesidentifiedas <br />largerthaneightinchesdiameter.Harvestingthesetreesasproposedwouldjeopardizetrees <br />adjacenttotheestablishedRibbonTrailandtreeswithintheboundariesofHendricksPark, <br />makingthemmorevulnerabletowindthrowandotherdamage(SeeForester’sReport, <br />AttachmentH). <br />Finally,additionaldamagewouldresultfromcoveringmuchoftheresultingclearedopenland <br />withthepavedroadways,andeventuallydwellingsanddriveways.Theywouldfurtheraffect <br />drainageandincreasesoilinstabilityonsteepslopes.Asignificantareaoftheproposedsitelies <br />withinandadjacenttohighandveryhighlandslidehazard\[See EC9.8320(1)PolicyE.2,(2), <br />(4),and(10)(d),(j)\]. <br />ThereisampleevidencethattheproposedPUDdoesnotcomplywithCriterion11:“The <br />proposeddevelopmentshallhaveminimaloff-siteimpacts.”Wenotetheimperative: <br />“shall.” <br />Consequently,theapplicationshouldbedenied. <br />174 <br /> <br />