the lowest elevations, preclude these purposes. The greatest degree of previous site <br />disturbance has occurred in the higher elevations of the site. This includes the previous <br />construction of three homes, a multi-unit building, a barn and grading of a dirt vehicle <br />trail where the proposed private road (Cupola Drive) would be located. It also appears <br />that a number of trees were removed over the preceding years since the number of <br />mature trees at the highest elevations of the site are significantly fewer than in the lower <br />elevations with minimal ground disturbance. Clustering of home sites in the mid to higher <br />elevations will limit the ground disturbance and allow for the preservation of more trees <br />and vegetation, which is consistent with the above policies to the extent possible, given <br />the existing site conditions and constraints. <br />There are significant flaws in the reasoning of the staff report, which accepts wholesale <br />the arguments made by the applicant. While the applicant does not propose building on <br />some of the steepest parts of the eastern slope, they do not, in fact, ÅclusterÆ the proposed <br />lots to the Åextent possible.Æ I want to pause for a moment to point out a pervasive <br />problem with the staff report, which makes repeated reference to the applicant having <br />done all they can do, and the best job possible, given the limitations of the site, which <br />exists in R-1 zoning. The Proposed Capital Hill PUD exists in the South Hills Study and <br />Laurel Hill Valley special overlay zones, which means the applicant must go through the <br />PUD process and not perform a simple land division under R-1 zoning. The reason for <br />this is simple: the codes recognize the south hills, especially ridgelines above 901 feet, as <br />areas in need of unique protection. ThatÈs why we have the PUD approval process, which <br />imposes certain constraints, but also provides special latitude, in order to insure <br />environmental and community needs are protected. In short, the applicant is not <br />constrained by the R-1 zoning rules in forming a proposed PUD. The applicant could <br />have proposed, for instance, clusters of townhomes on top of the hill, thereby condensing <br />housing in order to save a significant number of trees on the ridgeline. The applicant <br />could have proposed several large lots for expensive homes and deed restricted the <br />maintenance of the large trees on those lots. Many of the trees to the south of the <br />ApplicantÈs large house were cut down in previous years, but north of his house (between <br />his house going north to the boundary of HendricksÈs Park), there are many healthy very <br />large trees that define the ridgeline. Almost all of those trees will be cut down. During the <br />hearing and throughout the staff report, the Eugene Planning staff both defends the <br />ApplicantÈs right to build under R-1 while also defending the proposed Capital Hill PUD <br /> <br />