top of the ridgeline, clustering home sites in areas with fewer trees and vegetation and, <br />accordingly, resulting in less impact to the site, noting that the greatest degree of previous site <br />disturbance occurred in the higher elevations of the site (Hearings Official Decision, page 20). <br />The Hearings Official also disagreed with the NRC's characterization of the site's topography <br />and proposed site plan. <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts (Appeal Statement, page 6) that the Hearings Official describes the, <br />"Development Standards for the Ridgeline section of the South Hills Study" (Hearings Official <br />decision, page 19) but then lists the purposes from the Development Section, not the Ridgeline <br />Park section, which is a misinterpretation. <br />The appellant also asserts (Appeal Statement, page 6) that the Hearings Official erred by using <br />the phrase, "overall impacts" on pages 19 and 20 of her decision because the phrase is not a <br />recognized goal or policy of the South Hills Study. The appellant also asserts that the Hearings <br />Official erred by describing the open space buffer as being concentrated in the area with the <br />steepest slopes and that clustering of home sites in the mid- to higher elevations will allow for <br />the preservation of more trees (Hearings Official Decision, page 20). <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />The appellant has referenced EC 9.9630(3)(b) and (c) Development Standards - Specific <br />Recommendations, however it is important to note that the entire South Hills Study is <br />applicable to this development and not just EC 9.9630, since a Tentative PUD must be <br />consistent with applicable adopted refinement plan policies as defined under EC 9.8320(2). The <br />policies at EC 9.9.630(3)(b) and (c) are identical to those in the South Hills Study, however the <br />codified policies are only applicable to land use applications for Subdivision, Partition and Site <br />Review as stated in EC 9.9500. This is a technical detail noted here simply for purposes of <br />clarification, as the substance of the policies in this case remains the same. <br />The following is one of the relevant Development Standards of the South Hills Study applicable <br />to the proposed PUD, as addressed in the staff report and Hearings Official decision, and raised <br />in this appeal issue. <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 />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 7 <br />