Attachment B <br />which are incorporated here by reference. <br />Staff notes that the northwest corner of the development site is the gateway to the <br />neighborhood. The wall proposed along the west property line stops short of the north <br />property line, to enable a landscaped bed with a tree and shrubs, which will help soften the <br />entrance to the development. As noted at EC 9.8320(5)(c) in regards to traffic, EC 9.8320(9) in <br />regards to stormwater runoff, and EC 9.8320(4) in regards to protection of natural features, <br />which are also incorporated here by reference, the proposed development will have minimal <br />off-site impacts related to traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and natural resources. Based on the <br />above findings, the development is reasonably compatible with the nearby land uses. <br />Opponents Arguments <br />The neighbors argue strenuously that the proposed PUD is not compatible or harmonious with <br />the existing neighborhood. In addition to the reasons discussed above in EC 9.8320(12), the <br />neighbors argue that the proposed PUD is simply too big, and that fewer buildings of a more <br />demure size would be more harmonious with the existing neighborhood. PT-1 and PT-2. <br />Hearing Official Conclusions <br />The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for EC 9.8320(13) and adopts those <br />findings by this reference - consistent with the findings set forth below. <br />In the Northgreen Property LLC. V. City of Eugene discussed above, LUBA also affirmed the prior <br />Hearings Official's approach to EC 9.8320(13). <br />Although the findings quoted above could be clearer, we understand the <br />hearings officer to have concluded that the proposed tower is reasonably <br />compatible and harmonious with the neighborhood where it meets the <br />objective standards set out in the EC for telecommunications towers, and <br />where the tower will be screened from view while still allowing the tower <br />to function as intended. We cannot say that those findings are <br />inadequate or represent an erroneous interpretation and application of <br />EC 9.8320(13). We also do not think that the evidence cited by petitioner <br />in support of its argument that the tower is not compatible with the <br />neighborhood is so overwhelming that a reasonable person could not <br />find that the tower is compatible, particularly given the inherently <br />subjective. nature of the criterion. Olson v. City of Springfield, 56 Or LUBA <br />229, 237 (2008). <br />The Hearings official adheres to this approach. Here, a finding that the proposed PUD is <br />incompatible and unharmonious despite having complied with all the applicable provisions of <br />EC 9.8320 would, at least in this case, be logically and legally indefensible. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 54 <br />