configuration as being the best possible proposal given the restraints of the zoning and <br />the difficulties of the site. These are both fallacious assertions. The Applicant has no clear <br />rights to build under the base zone (R-1), nor is the applicant constrained by the base <br />zone in conceiving of an imaginative PUD that both meets the needs of the environment <br />and the rights of the community as defined by the refinement plans. <br />The applicant has simply chosen not to pursue other options and has proposed what <br />amounts to a land division with a narrow tract (Tract A) of land as a buffer, but this in no <br />way leads to the conclusion that the current proposal is the only practical solution, as the <br />Eugene Planning Staff suggests. The staff concludes that the physical ÅconstraintsÆ of the <br />site ÅprecludeÆ the applicantÈs obligation of fulfilling more than half of the design <br />standards as set forward by the South Hills StudyÄan illogical assertion. The Applicant <br />could instead have designed a PUD that met a significant number of the standards. PUD <br />applications are supposed to develop in 1) (b) Lowest elevations (c) Least amount of <br />vegetation and (d) Least amount of visual impact. They are supposed to avoid developing <br />at 2) (b) Higher elevationsc (c) Significant amounts of vegetation (d) Significant visual <br />impact. <br />The applicant has failed to meet 75% of the design standards set out by the South Hills <br />EC 9.8320(2) <br />Study. As discussed in the portion of the Joint Response Committee <br />document, the applicant proposes to develop on the ridgeline above 901È feet. Not only is <br />there a significant amount of vegetation above 901È, but almost allof the largest trees <br />existing along the ridgeline will be cut down for construction. As the ForesterÈs Report <br />included in the Joint Response Committee document states, the large trees help prevent <br />windthrow in the adjacent park, in the surrounding neighborhood and in the rest of the <br />proposed Capital Hill PUD. eliminating large trees on the ridgeline will likely lead to the <br />loss of more trees, including those trees in the proposed Capital Hill PUD preservation <br />areas. The applicant has also manifestly failed to mitigate Åsignificant visual impact,Æ <br />which we have demonstrated in our documentation (and shown below). Our rendering <br />below is a representation of what the ridgeline would look like if the trees that can be cut <br />(removal trees, discretionary trees, and technical felling trees) are cut down. <br /> <br />