For discussion see Appendix A, Memorandum from Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG, GeoScience <br />Inc. dated May 2, 2018. <br />EC 9.9630(3)(d): That developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space <br />elements of different developments in order to preserve the maximum amount of continuous <br />open space. <br />Appeal Issue #6: The Hearings Official errs by stating (p. 22): <br />"As described above, the proposed PUD includes a total of 4.54 acres of protected open space. It, <br />buffers the proposed residential development from the eastern property boundary with common <br />open space preservation area (Tract A) and individual preservation areas on Lot 5 and Lots 8 <br />through 19. This clustering of open space both buffers the proposed development from the <br />Ribbon Trail and protects significant natural features and vegetation. The common area and <br />individual preservation areas of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19 will effectively act as one large <br />continuous open space. The proposed development also includes a preservation area along the <br />northeast boundary of the subject property which abuts the established public open space of <br />Hendricks Park consistent with the policy langua ewe. " (underlining added for emphasis) <br />There is no separate preservation area along the northeastern boundary of the PUD. The presence <br />of this additional "preservation area" is not mentioned in the Application, appearing for the first <br />time :in the Staff Report (p. 12): "Staff notes that the proposal also includes a preservation <br />area along the northeast boundary of the subject property which abuts the established public <br />open space of Hendricks Park, consistent with the policy language above. " The Hearings <br />Official relied on statements in the Staff Report that are not supported by evidence in the <br />Application or Site Plans. <br />EC 9.9630(3)(e): That developments be reviewed in terms of scale, bulk and height to ensure <br />that development blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of the south hills <br />area. <br />Appeal Issue #7: The Hearings Official incorrectly interpreted the requirement that <br />developments be reviewed in terms of scale, bulk and height to determine the Application is <br />compliant. <br />The Hearings Official states (p. 22): "The proposed PUD does not include specific building <br />areas or envelopes to accommodate development impacts on each lot. The Response Committee <br />and several neighbors argue that without details specifying the height and placement of homes <br />on the sites, and without a specific information regarding housing style and character, the <br />applicant has not satisfied this South Hills Study development standard. The Response <br />Committee relies on the applicant's statement that 'The Capital Hill CCR's will provide <br />guidelines for the bulb height and scale of the buildings. In addition, there will be a design <br />8 <br />