ER-20 <br />1 impacts of the development and include any necessary protection measures to <br />2 ensure their survival. Record 409. Those protection measures could include <br />3 moving Building 2 farther back than the approved 5-foot setback. <br />4 Accordingly, Neighbors' argument provides no basis for reversal or remand of <br />5 the decision. This portion of the second assignment of error is denied. <br />6 B. Adequate Screening (EC 9.8320(3)) <br />7 EC 9.8320(3) requires the city to find that "[t]he PUD will provide <br />8 adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but not limited to, <br />9 anticipated building locations, bulk, and height." <br />10 1. Eastern Boundary <br />11 In portions of their second and third assignments of error, Neighbors <br />12 argue that the city erred in concluding that the PUD will provide adequate <br />13 screening from the park located to the east of the proposed PUD.8 In order to <br />14 satisfy EC 9.8320(3) along the eastern property boundary, Meadows proposed <br />15 open space along the northern portion of the eastern property line and proposed <br />16 to'rely on an existing filbert cluster and fruit trees along the southern portion of <br />17 the eastern property line for screening. The hearings officer concluded that <br />18 Meadows' proposed screening on the east property line that essentially <br />19 maintained open space on the eastern portion of the property did not comply <br />20 with EC 9.8320(3). Record 360. The hearings officer imposed a condition of <br />21 approval that required Meadows to revise the final site plan prior to final PUD <br />22 approval to provide landscaping along the eastern property line. Record 410. <br />8 As noted, the petition for review is not well organized with respect to <br />Neighbors' challenges to the city's decision that the screening requirement is <br />met. <br />Page 20 <br />000069 <br />