portion of the property is permitted subject to planned unit development procedures "when it can <br />be demonstrated that a proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this section. " <br />She goes on to list the purposes of the Development Section, not the Ridgeline Park section. <br />The Development Standards are separate from the Ridgeline Park Section, which affords special <br />protection to property above 901'. The code has been misinterpreted. <br />EC 9.9630(3)(b): <br />That planned unit development procedures shall be utilized for the following purposes: <br />1. To encourage clustering of development in areas characterized by: <br />a. Shallowest slopes <br />b. Lowest elevations <br />c. Least amount of vegetation <br />d. Least amount of visual impact <br />2. To encourage preservation as open space those areas characterized by: <br />a. Intermediate and steep slopes <br />b. Higher elevations <br />c. Significant amounts of vegetation; <br />d. Significant visual impact. <br />The Hearings Official errs by stating (p. 19): "Consistent with the stated purpose, the hearings <br />official interprets these standards to encourage the applicant to propose a development that uses <br />procedures afforded through the PUD procedures to balance the clustering of development and <br />preserving of open space in a manner that would most effectively minimize overall impacts. " The <br />South Hills Study standards and purposes does not discuss "overall impacts." The phrase is not a <br />recognized policy or goal in the code. <br />The Hearings Official errs by stating (p. 20) that "This preservation area concentrates the open <br />space buffer in the area of the property with the steepest slopes, most significant amounts of <br />vegetation and most significant visual impact. " As the Response Committee demonstrated, the <br />high visual impact occurs on the ridgeline, where the cutting of trees will expose the ridgeline to <br />the entire city of Eugene. <br />The Hearings Official errs by stating (p. 20) that "Clustering of home sites in the mid to higher <br />elevations will limit the ground disturbance and allow for the preservation of more trees and <br />vegetation, which is consistent with the above policies to the extent possible, given the existing <br />site conditions and constraints. " Previous designs considered by the Applicant (see below) <br />represent less disturbance to the site than the current design. The PUD procedures provide wide <br />latitude and flexibility in order to avoid a clear cut on the ridgeline. Contrary to what the <br />Hearings Official claims, the proposed Capital Hill PUD does not offer a design that seeks to <br />meet the codes to "the extent possible. " <br />The Hearings Official errs by stating (p. 20): "The site's topography and the proposed site plan <br />do not reflect the neighbors' characterization. Based on the site plan layout, the clustering of <br />homes, the preservation of approximately one- third of the site as open space, the use of the <br />existing trail in which to locate the private road, the applicant has used the PUD procedures in a <br />manner to minimize overall impacts. It is clear that the Response Committee and neighbors do <br />6 <br />