shall be given to the public interest in any determinations. Given that the Applicant has <br />failed to satisfy most of the Planned Unit Development criteria, and given the wide array <br />of design choices available to them, the Staff should have found that the public interest <br />was not satisfied by the Proposed Capital Hill PUD. To note a few design possibilities the <br />Applicant could have used to better protect the natural features of the site: the Applicant <br />could have concentrated townhomes in a smaller area on top of Capital Hill and thereby <br />protected larger stands of trees on the ridgeline. The Applicant could have developed <br />larger lots for expensive homes on the top of the hill, and thereby protected more trees on <br />ridgeline and reduced the traffic to the top of the hill. As we have argued elsewhere, only <br />one evergreen of significant size is preserved above 901 feet. There are, of course, many <br />other design possibilities the Applicant could have considered but has chosen not to. <br />Whether or not they ÅattemptedÆ to satisfy the criteria in the code is irrelevant in light of <br />the fact that they could have done so and chose not to. Though we acknowledge that all <br />design choices require sacrifices, and no design is 100% ideal, we contend that the <br />Applicant has failed to satisfy a large number of the design criteria for approval of a <br />PUD. The Applicant has also failed to satisfy the most important criteria to the public <br />interestÄthe natural resource of the ridgeline and the park system (views under threat, <br />trees threatened by windthrow, trails threatened by storm run off and landslide), and the <br />safety of residents on the roads and with regard to landslide. <br />9.8300 (1) Create a sustainable environment that includes: (d) Preservation of existing <br />natural resources and the opportunity to enhance habitat areas. (e) Clustering of <br />residential dwellings to achieve energy and resource conservation while also achieving <br />the planned density for the site. <br />As the Joint Response Committee Report Document argues, the Applicant has failed to <br />protect large trees on the ridgeline above 901 feet. As the foresterÈs report attached to the <br />Joint Response Committee document states, large trees are the most important vegetation <br />for the health of the forest on the site and to prevent windthrow in the contiguous parks. <br />The Applicant has designed a Tree Preservation Plan that allows for the cutting of 75% of <br />the largest trees 36 inches in diameter and over (see chart below). <br /> <br />Trees 14 inches in Trees 15-20 inches Trees 21 inches in Of the 21 and over <br /> <br />