Ken Helm, City of Eugene <br />Re: Final Rebuttal - Oakleigh. Meadow Co-Housing, LLC <br />Page 10 of 11 <br />project makes every effort to preserve the habitat functions of its site by <br />clustering development to provide contiguous habitat with the adjoining <br />undeveloped parklands and by providing sw,ales and rain gardens to support <br />such habitat. <br />Mr. Conte argues that the "minimal off-site impacts" standard at EC <br />9.8320(12) is meaningless as written and should be effectively replaced with <br />the term "insignificant" from EC 9.8370(2) and 9.8455(2). Mr. Conte's <br />interpretation ignores the fact that the. drafters of the Eugene Code clearly <br />knew how to say "insignificant" when they meant "insignificant." They did <br />not say so here. Accordingly, it is not for the Hearings Official to insert this <br />term into a provision where it does not belong. ORS 174.010 et seq. PGE v. <br />Biireati of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993). Harris v. Sanders, 142 Or App <br />126, 130 (1996) (noting that the same standards govern the interpretation of <br />municipal ordinances as state statutes). <br />8. Greenway <br />As is set forth in the application and staff report, the Oakleigh <br />Meadow Co-Housing proposal meets each. of the criteria for obtaining a <br />Greenway permit. In particular, it should be noted that while the Greenway <br />is particularly large in this area, the development does not abut the river or <br />impinge upon the / WR conservation overlay which is designed to protect the <br />riparian area and its functions.' <br />Ms. Regan argues that the development should not be granted a <br />Greenway permit based on an erroneous reading of the criteria under EC <br />9.8815. Specifically, Ms. Regan appears to confuse the Willamette River with <br />the "Greenway river corridor" with regard to Eugene Code sections 9.8815(1) <br />and (2) and (5)(a) and (c). These provisions do not relate to the Greenway <br />corridor as a whole, but are related only to the "Willamette River." The <br />Willamette River is defined by statute and is separate from the Greenway. <br />See ORS 390.310(3). Accordingly, Ms. Regan 's testimony is misdirected. <br />' As noted by staff, the Greenway itself does not provide a development <br />setback for properties along the west side of the Willamette River. Along the <br />east side of the river, the Willakenzie Area Plan provides a building setback <br />of only 35 feet. Consistent with the Goal 5 protections for the Willamette <br />River, we recommend that the Hearings Official rely on the / WR setback for <br />the purposes of EC 9.8815(5)(a). <br />442 <br />