Residential Land Use and ;`lousing Element <br />A.24: Consider adopting or modifying local zoning and development regulations to provide a <br />discretionary design review process or clear and objective design standards, in order to <br />address issues of compatibility, aesthetics, open space, and other community concerns. <br />(Page III-A-9) <br />This policy provides broad direction relevant to the local government, regarding the review of <br />proposed telecommunications facilities. The City has adopted specific telecommunications standards <br />which include a discretionary review process (in this case a CUP/PUD review for new towers in R-1) <br />which address issues of compatibility and clear and objective design standards for new cell towers at <br />EC 9.5750 which also address compatibility, aesthetics, open space and other community concerns by <br />restricting tower height, location, color and numerous other criteria. As such, the proposal as <br />reviewed through the PUD process is consistent with this policy. <br />Environmental Resources Element <br />C.21 When planning for and regulating development, local governments shall consider the <br />need for protection of open spaces, including those characterized by significant vegetation <br />and wildlife. Means of protecting open space include but are not limited to outright <br />acquisition, conservation easements, planned unit development ordinances, streamside <br />protection ordinances, open space tax deferrals, donations to the public, and performance <br />zoning. <br />Environmental Design Element <br />E.6 Local jurisdictions shall carefully evaluate their development regulations to ensure that <br />they address environmental design considerations, such as, but not limited to, safety, crime <br />prevention, aesthetics, and compatibility with existing and anticipated adjacent uses <br />(particularly considering high and medium density development locating adjacent to low <br />density residential). <br />The two policies above also provide broad policy direction to the local government. Consistent with <br />these policies, the existing golf course includes a /PD overlay which requires any development to be <br />reviewed through the PUD process. While the City takes into consideration the existence of private <br />recreation facilities and open space in its parks planning process, because there is no guarantee that <br />lands owned by private entities will remain in perpetuity as public open space and/or recreation <br />facilities, the City does not (and is not required to) account for private facilities and open space in its <br />supply of recreation facilities, parks and open space. The subject property is not included on any <br />formally adopted list, inventory or map identifying the City's existing parks and open space supply. <br />While the proposed development will impact a private golf course, the proposed development will not <br />impact the provision of public recreational facilities, nor will they affect access to existing or future <br />public recreational facilities. <br />There are several other examples of privately held golf courses and cemeteries in Eugene including <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 4 <br />HO Agenda - Page 1 <br />