review team that will review and approve proposed plans ensuring that the intent of the OCR's is <br />met.' (Application, page 35) The Response Committee argues that because the applicant is <br />relying on CCR's, which have not been provided as part of the application, to establish <br />compliance with this criterion, the applicant has not yet satisfied this criterion. The Response <br />Committee is correct that if the application relies on CCR's to establish compliance with this, or <br />any other, approval criterion, those CCR's must be included as part of the application. However, <br />this South Hills Study development standard addresses the proposed PUD as a whole and does <br />not require a review of individual buildings. Neither the PUD procedures applicable to this <br />proposed development nor this South Hills Study development standard require the applicant to <br />provide specific details about the buildings that may be developed in the future. At issue under <br />this development standard is whether the proposed development blends in with the natural <br />characteristics of the south hills areas. " <br />The code requires that the proposed PUD be evaluated in terms of scale, bulk and height. The <br />Applicant attempted to address this requirement by promising CCR's at an unspecified future <br />date. According to LUBA decision No. 2012-039 ("City cannot rely on non-binding expressions <br />of intent from an application to ensure that approval standards are met."), the Applicant is not <br />allowed to postpone the evaluation of the bulk and height of construction to a later time. <br />Instead of requiring the Applicant to provide the CCR's they rely on to establish compliance, the <br />Hearings Official proceeds to do the Applicant's work for them by stating that the approval <br />standard was met based on topography, tree preservation, and the presence of neighboring off- <br />site trees to obscure the view of the development. <br />1. The Hearings Official states (p. 23): "In reality, residential development of this property <br />may impact some views from the valley floor, as has the other residential development <br />that has occurred in this area over time. " The Hearings Official creates a false <br />equivalency between the clear cutting of a ridgeline above 901' that the current proposed <br />Capital Hill PUD proposes and other "development in the area." The development in the <br />surrounding area is not above 901' and thus not subject to the South Hills Study <br />restrictions and recommendations that guide development above 901'. <br />2. The Hearings Official states (p. 23): "As summarized in the Staff Report, the neighboring <br />off-site mature trees and existing homes significantly obscure the view of the top of the <br />ridge from lower elevations to the west. This will, in effect, limit the potential visual <br />impact of the proposed single-family residential development in the top of the ridge area. <br />Neighboring off-site mature trees and existing homes significantly obscure the view of the <br />top of the ridge from lower elevations to the west. Just as the existing development on the <br />property and on neighboring residential development has not dominated the views of the <br />South Hills, as proposed by the applicant, the proposed residential development will also <br />blend in with those views. " Rather, in order to meet the recommendations of the South <br />Hills Study the Applicant must create screening of the proposed PUD on the PUD itself <br />and not rely on screening from off-site trees. <br />9 <br />