development and then as individual lots were built out. It could range from 43% to 51% of more <br />than 926 trees identified as larger than eight inches diameter. Harvesting these trees as proposed <br />would jeopardize trees adjacent to the established Ribbon Trail, on neighboring property, and <br />within the boundaries of Hendricks Park, making them more vulnerable to windthrow and other <br />damage. <br />3. Stormwater Runoff. Off-site impacts from stormwater runoff has not been adequately <br />accounted for by applicant's plans to direct flows down slope toward the Ribbon Trail. They <br />would discharge in ways that would further affect drainage and increase soil instability on steep <br />slopes. A significant area of the proposed site lies within and adjacent to high and very high <br />landslide hazard zones. <br />The proposed Stormwater Plan and Drainage Study intends to collect flow from the top of the <br />east side of the development and redirect that flow to the bottom of the development site adjacent <br />to and uphill of the Ribbon Trail. However, Application fails to adequately demonstrate that the <br />Ribbon Trail will not be impacted by higher post-development runoff from the eastern side of the <br />top of the development, `including the proposed private street. <br />Assignments of Error,, Criterion 12 <br />Appeal Issue #29: The Hearings Official erred in approving Criterion 9.8320 (12) by finding <br />that the proposed development "shall be reasonably compatible and harmonious with adjacent <br />and nearby land uses." The Hearings Official failed to evaluate the evidence in the record that <br />contradicts her finding and improperly applied limited-evidence of zoning to support her <br />findings. <br />The Hearings Official agrees that "the applicant correctly recognizes, the words `compatible' and <br />`harmonious' are not defined in the city's code" (DHO, p. 78). But this does not entail that the <br />claims of the Applicant 'or the Hearings Official are well reasoned and good judgments. The <br />Hearings Official states that the proposed development "will be compatible and harmonious" <br />because it is "a low-density residential development within a similar low density residential <br />neighborhood" (DHO, p. 78). However, the specific facts of the two areas are not the same. <br />There is no other similar, large-scale PUD existing in the immediate neighborhood or along the <br />eastern area of the Eugene ridgeline. This development is unique, unprecedented, and beyond the <br />scale of the existing residential neighborhood. The Hearings Official erroneously relies on <br />comparing the proposed CHPUD with existing residential use, but it is not accurate or <br />meaningful to compare a PUD as a whole with individual R-1 density homes. The implication of <br />such a comparison is that the CHPUD is reduced to a lot-by-lot development and, thus, should <br />not be designated as a PUD. <br />On the major issue raised for satisfying this Criterion 12, the Hearings Official describes the <br />proposed preservation areas as "providing a significant buffer with the existing forested area on <br />the Ribbon Trail property. This preserved area provides a visual screen of the development for <br />33 <br />