<br />The Joint Committee finds that there is inadequate and inappropriate protection of trees <br />and that the application relies on the promise of future CC&Rs to provide protection. <br />However, LUBA No. 2012-039 Final Opinion & Order Page 11 (sentence supported with <br />3 citations of prior rulings) states that the "City cannot rely on non-binding expressions of <br />intent from an application to ensure that approved standards are met." <br /> <br />That planned unit development review shall be based upon a recognition of both public <br />and private interest. In areas of significant conflict (e.g., locating development in a <br />highly visible area as opposed to a less visible area or in an area of significant <br />vegetation as opposed to a relatively open area) which could be resolved through the <br />use of an alternative development plan, primacy shall be given to the public interest in <br />any determinations. <br />This planned unit development proposal is required to meet the public policy direction <br />contained in the South Hills Study for development in areas having significant vegetation <br />and other sensitive characteristics such as steep slopes, wetlands, and open waterways. <br />The evaluation of this development proposal attempts to balance the private interest to <br />develop the property for low-density residential use along with the public interest for <br />minimizing the impact to the natural character of the site, in accordance with the South <br />Hills Study and other applicable PUD approval criteria. <br />In the context of the PUD review process, and understanding that the subject property is <br />zoned for low-density residential development, staff acknowledges that an appropriate <br />level of residential development can occur. Staff finds that the proposal provides for an <br />appropriate level of low-density residential development, while attempting to preserve <br />the natural features and qualities of the subject property as much as possible. <br />The applicant has attempted to cluster the developable areas of the lots in less vegetated <br />areas, through the use of common open space preservation area (Tract A) and individual <br />preservation areas on the eastern lots to provide for a larger overall preserved area on <br />the steepest slopes and most densely vegetated portion of the site. The applicant has <br />attempted to work with the constraints and opportunities of the property which have <br />dictated the development pattern of the proposal. This has been achieved by placing more <br />lots in the higher elevations where more site disturbance has occurred in the past, such <br />as the construction of existing structures and associated grading and the past removal of <br /> <br />