ER-26 <br />1 unusual where the two criteria require evaluation of similar evidence. We <br />2 cannot say that the hearings officer's findings are inadequate or represent an <br />3 erroneous interpretation and application of EC 9.8320(13). <br />4 Finally, we also understand Neighbors to argue that the proposed PUD is <br />5 not reasonably compatible and harmonious with the use of the adjacent <br />6 property to the north, because the PUD could harm cedar trees located on that <br />7 property. Neighbors' Petition for Review 27-28. We reject the argument for <br />8 two reasons. First, it is insufficiently developed for review. Deschutes <br />9 Development v. Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA 218 (1982). Second, the <br />10 argument fails to recognize or address a condition of approval imposed by the <br />11 decision that requires Meadows to demonstrate that the cedar trees can survive <br />12 the construction impacts and take any necessary protection measures to ensure <br />13 their survival. Record 409. <br />14 This portion of Neighbors third assignment of error and Conte's third <br />15 assignment of error is denied. <br />16. D. Minimize Impacts to Significant Trees (EC 9.8320(4)(b)) <br />17 EC 9.8320(4)(b) requires the PUD to be "designed and sited to preserve <br />18 significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible * * In a portion <br />19 of their third assignment of error, Neighbors argue that the city erred in finding <br />20 that the proposed PUD satisfies EC 9.8320(4)(b) because Meadows. proposes to <br />21 remove the four significant trees on the property. Neighbors' Petition for <br />22 Review 26-27. <br />23 Meadows responds that Neighbors are precluded from raising the issue <br />24 under Miles and ORS 197.825(2).. Neighbors has not responded to Meadows' <br />25 exhaustion waiver argument. We agree with Meadows that Neighbors' <br />Page 26 <br />000075 <br />