considered a public facility and not counted toward the net density <br />2 <br />calculation. <br />Petitioners' interpretation is based mainly on the language in the code <br />4 <br />6 <br />7 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br />CITY ATTORNEYS <br />OFFICE <br />125 E. a Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 07401 <br />Phone(541)682-8447 <br />Fax (5411682-5414 <br />that provides that net density is the number of dwelling units per acre of land <br />in actual residential use "and reserved for the exclusive use of the residents." <br />They seem to be arguing that public utility easements are not "reserved for <br />the exclusive use of the residents," as required under EC 9.2751(1)(b), and <br />therefore should be deducted from the acreage in residential use when <br />calculating net density. Petitioners' overly literal reading of the phrase <br />"reserved for the exclusive use of the residents," however, makes no sense <br />when viewed in context with the rest of the net density provisions. <br />First, as the Hearings Official points out, EC 9.2751(1)(c) provides <br />specific items that are to be excluded from the net density calculation. <br />Easements are not mentioned in that list of items to be excluded. If <br />easements were meant to be excluded, the Hearings Official explained, they <br />would be included in the list of exclusions from the "acreage of land <br />considered part of the residential use," in EC 9.2751(1)(c). <br />Second, the staff report found easements are specifically allowed to be <br />counted, pursuant to EC 9.8310(4)(a)." For purposes of calculating net <br />density in a proposed PUD, EC 9.8310(4)(a) provides that easements <br />beneftting the residents of the PUD may be included in the density <br />calculations. 19 The staff had determined that the EVVEB water line easement <br />" This finding is found in the staff report Rec. 1176, which the Hearings <br />Official inco orated into his decision: "The Hearings Official generally <br />and adopts those findings <br />concurs with taff's findings for EC 9.8320(11)(PC <br />h below." Rec. 54. <br />bey this reference consistent with the findings set t <br />EC 9.8310(4)(a) provides: <br />Page 27 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />