trees and vegetation. Placing the new private road within the footprint of the existing <br />vehicular access way is another example of working with the existing property <br />constraints while limiting site disturbance. Locating almost all of the preservation area <br />in the steepest portion of the site where trees and vegetation are most dense also serves <br />the public interest by providing a larger buffer between the publically used Ribbon Trail <br />and the developed portion of the site while also ensuring a significant natural wildlife <br />corridor. Staff agrees that the public interests are met by this development plan, and <br />there are no significant conflicts with private interests, to the extent contemplated or <br />otherwise required by the above policy. <br /> <br />The Joint Response Committee finds the following statement by Eugene Planning Staff <br />an inadequate response to the conflict represented by the Proposed Capital Hill PUD: <br />Staff finds that the proposal provides for an appropriate level of low-density residential <br />development, while attempting to preserve the natural features and qualities of the <br />subject property as much as possible. As we argued above, the fundamental assumptions <br />of the Eugene Planning Staff are fallacious. Whether or not the applicant attempted to <br />develop an adequate plan is irrelevant. They have failed to meet the codes of the relevant <br />refinement plans. We have already demonstrated that they COULD have developed a <br />PUD that adequately met the standards and recommendations of the refinement plans. <br />R-1 zoning does not constrain them from conceiving of an imaginative plan that meets <br />the needs of the community and of the environment. That they have failed to do so is no <br />reason for the Eugene Planning Staff to state that they did Åas much as possible.Æ The <br />proposed Capital Hill PUD plans to cut down 75% of the large trees and clear cut the <br />Åevergreen forest edgeÆ ridgeline as defined in the South Hills Study as a public asset. <br />This plan represents an unnecessary assault on environment and on the public interest. <br /> <br /> <br />Laurel Hill Plan <br />The following findings address those policies (shown in italics) of the Laurel Hill Plan <br />found to be applicable to the proposed tentative PUD. To the extent that the findings <br />and analysis in the applicantÈs written statement are relevant, those findings are also <br />incorporated herein by this reference. <br />Land Use and Future Urban DesignPolicy 1: Approval of Valley Development will take <br />into consideration: <br />a.Density. The appropriate density for residential development shall be <br /> <br />determined based on 1) the provision of the Metropolitan Area General Plan <br /> <br />