Appeal Issue #3: The Hearings Official erred in the determination of whether the PUD served <br />the purposes outlined in the Ridgeline Park Section, South Hills Study. <br />EC 9.9630(1)(a)2. states: <br />Development under planned unit development procedures when it can be demonstrated that a <br />proposed development is consistent with the adopted South Hills Study Ridgeline Park purpose <br />statement which provides any areas recommended for preservation or park usage should serve at <br />least one of the following purposes: <br />a. To insure preservation of those areas most visibly a part of the entire community. <br />b. To protect areas of high biological value in order to provide for the continued health of <br />native wildlife and vegetation. <br />c. To insure provision of recreational areas in close proximity to major concentrations of <br />population. <br />d. To provide connective trails between major recreational areas. <br />e. To provide connective passageways for wildlife between important biological <br />preserves. <br />f. To contribute to Eugene's evergreen forest edge. <br />g. To provide an open space area as a buffer between the intensive level of urban <br />development occurring within the urban service area and the rural level of development <br />occurring outside the urban service area. <br />The city must expressly adopt findings addressing the purpose statements, according to Highland <br />Condominium Association vs. City of Eugene (LUBA No. 98-082). <br />The Hearing Official states (p. 17): "Nonetheless, even though it is not an area recommended <br />for preservation or park usage, the following analysis evaluates how the proposed development <br />furthers several of the purposes listed. " We contend that the Hearing Officer's analysis is in <br />error, by allowing the applicant to fulfill the purposes by setting aside property below 901'. The <br />Ridgeline Park section refers to land above 901', and its requirements cannot be met by setting <br />aside land for preservation or park usage below 901'. <br />Regarding each of the Policies included in the Hearing Official's Analysis: <br />Policy 1: To insure preservation of those areas most visibly a part of the entire community. <br />The Hearings Official states (p. 17): "In order to buffer the proposed residential development <br />from the Ribbon Trail, the proposed PUD designates 2.33 acres along the entire east property <br />line of the proposed PUD (Tract A) for preservation. Additionally, a portion of each individual <br />lot that borders Tract A, totaling approximately 2.08 acres, is also required to be preserved. <br />Combined, the proposed development preserves a total of 4.41 acres of along the eastern <br />property line as a buffer between the residential development and the Ribbon Trail. The <br />preserved areas will help to ensure the preservation of existing trees and vegetation while <br />providing a continuous visual buffer between the adjacent Ribbon Trail and the future home <br />4 <br />