Attachment B <br />West Boundary - The neighbors argue that the proposed eight-foot wall is too tall, <br />unsightly, out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and violates the required 5 foot <br />setback under EC 9.2750. PT-1, PT-2. The neighbors, including the adjacent property owner to <br />the west, state that the applicant will not be granted an easement to allow the screening wall <br />to be placed on or near the property line. HE-65, HE 66, PT-2. <br />North Boundary - The neighbors argue that insufficient screening is proposed along the <br />north property boundary primarily because setback standards will not be met in that area. <br />They are concerned about a row of mature cedar trees that could be adversely affected by the <br />development. Neighbors argue that the setbacks along the north property line and the <br />screening should be similar to that of residences along Oakleigh Lane - since the north property <br />line fronts on the lane. PT-1, PT-2. The neighbors also argue that the development will not be <br />sufficiently screened from the "public path/bike path" that traverses the north property line <br />and leads to the Willamette River bike path further to the east. <br />East Boundary - The neighbors argue that the applicant has provided no screening <br />along the eastern boundary which is adjacent to city owned open space. The neighbors argue <br />that the row of trees between the Willamette River bike path and the subject property are not <br />sufficient to screen the development from the intervening public open space. PT-1, PT-2. <br />South Boundary - The neighbors expressed the same concerns about the south <br />property line as expressed toward the eastern property boundary. PT-1. <br />Hearings Official Conclusions <br />In a relatively recent decision, the Land Use Board of Appeals affirmed the former <br />Hearings Official's interpretation of the terms "adequate" and "screening" as used in EC <br />9.8320(3). Northgreen Property LLC. V. City of Eugene, _ Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2011-099, <br />March 5, 2012). That interpretation concluded that EC 9.8320(3) does not require a <br />development to be completely obscured from view, but that it be screened "to a reasonable <br />extent" considering the proposed use. The Hearings Official adheres to that interpretation <br />here. <br />West Boundary - The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for the <br />screening along the western boundary and adopts those findings by this reference. In addition, <br />the applicant's final comment responds to the argument that the proposed wall fails to provide <br />adequate screening. The applicant notes that the definition of "screening" in EC 9.0500 <br />includes "walls." At the October 2, 2013 hearing the applicant testified that a "green wall" was <br />being proposed - which would plant espaliered trees along the outside of the wall facing <br />neighboring properties. The applicant also submitted an example site plan which shows that <br />the overall design.of the PUD can be maintained even if the neighboring property owner does <br />not grant an easement allowing the wall to be located very close to the west property <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 13 <br />