10 <br />language of EC 9.8325(8)(a), staff recommends the following condition of approval as originally stated <br />in the staff report: <br /> <br />• The final PUD plans shall be revised to remove any references to middle housing lots to be <br />created on land above 901-foot elevation. The final PUD plans shall also include a note stating <br />that: “No development of middle housing, single-unit dwellings, or any other development, <br />including but not limited to land divisions, may occur on any land above 901-feet in <br />elevation.” <br /> <br />Again, please refer to Attachment C to this memo for a complete list of conditions of approval from <br />the staff report along with all proposed revisions and newly recommended conditions of approval, as <br />described in this memo and revised Public Works referral comments. <br /> <br />Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements <br />Many of the community members submitting written testimony or providing comments during the <br />public hearing expressed concerns about the negative impacts of increased traffic and the lack of a <br />Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as a requirement for the proposed Tentative PUD and Subdivision. <br />Staff is sympathetic to the neighbors’ concerns; however, compliance with EC 9.8650 through EC <br />9.8680 Traffic Impact Analysis Review, is not an approval criterion applicable to a Tentative PUD or <br />Tentative Subdivision application electing to use the City’s Housing/Clear and Objective track <br />approval criteria. Because a TIA is not listed as an approval criterion for the Housing/Clear and <br />Objective track applications as is the case here, the applicant is not required to submit a TIA, even if <br />the development would otherwise trigger a TIA under the applicability criteria in EC 9.8670.2 For <br />these reasons, staff concludes that no TIA can be required in this case. <br /> <br />Tree Preservation & Removal <br />Many of the community members submitting written testimony or providing comments during the <br />public hearing also expressed concern about the loss of trees on the site and the lack of any tree <br />preservation plan by the applicant. <br /> <br />Tree Preservation is a function of the land use code (EC Chapter 9) that applies at the time of land use <br />application or building permit application. Tree Removal Permits are a tool of the Environment and <br />Health section of the code (EC Chapter 6). While these two chapters and their tree preservation and <br />removal standards apply independently, they do reference one another to provide parity between <br />the two different chapters. There are many exceptions built into each chapter that sometimes defer <br />protection to be based on protections provided by the other chapter. <br /> <br />Regarding EC Chapter 9 Tree Preservation, the PUD approval process applies the Tree Preservation <br />rules (starting at EC 9.6880), unless the site is identified as a Goal 5 resource as noted in the approval <br />criteria at EC 9.8325(3). This exception for Goal 5 resources is generally based on the high degree of <br />protection and limited allowances for disturbance within most Goal 5 resources. These protections 2 See also the Hearings Official Decisions in Delta Ridge PUD (PDT 17-3, ARB 17-2, and TIA 17-2) Decision dated October 5, 2017, and Amazon Corner LLC (TIA 16-7) Decision dated April 4, 2017