The appellant argues that objective standards such as size of buildings and <br />density calculations cannot be relied upon, but this is clearly inconsistent with <br />LUBA's holding in Northgreen. Accordingly, its Sixth Assignment of Error <br />provides no basis for reversal or remand. <br />7. The Appellant Fails to Identify Any Error in the Hearings Official's <br />Findings Under EC 9.8320(3) Concerning Screening. <br />The appellant argues under its Seventh Assignment of Error that the PUD <br />does not provide adequate screening, because the Hearings Official did not <br />account for "building location (and] bulk," because screening along the northern <br />property boundary includes landscaping and the preservation of Cedar trees in <br />the public right-of-way in the road dedication areas, and because the western <br />property boundary is screened by a wall. None of these arguments establish any <br />error in the Hearings Official's decision, and.the Planning Commission should <br />affirm. <br />EC 9.8320(3) requires a PUD to "provide adequate screening from <br />surrounding properties including, but not limited to, anticipated building <br />locations, bulk and height." In accordance with LUBA's opinion in Northgreen <br />Property LLC v. City of Eugene, the Hearings Official found EC 9.8320(3) "does not <br />require a development to be completely obscured from view, but that it be <br />screened to a reasonable extent considering the proposed use." HO Decision, p. <br />13 (internal quotations omitted). The appellant does not challenge this finding. <br />Based on this finding, the Hearings Official made detailed findings with <br />regard to screening on each side of the subject property using OMC's site plans. <br />These plans depict the location and bulk of each of the proposed structures, as <br />well as proposed landscaping. HO Decision, p. 9-14. Based on this evaluation, <br />the Hearings Official concluded that the screening was adequate with additional <br />screening along and eastern boundary (adjoining undeveloped city parkland) <br />and a higher fence along the southern boundary. The appellant's assignment <br />does not identify any defect in the Hearings Official's analysis of the site plan, or <br />demonstrate that different or additional screening is required. <br />The appellant argues that some Cedar trees along the northern property <br />boundary cannot be relied upon as screening when they-could be removed. <br />However, the OMC landscape plan "shows continuous landscaping" along the <br />northern boundary, except for the driveway entrance which is "flanked by <br />proposed landscape beds with new tree plantings." HO Decision, p. 10. The <br />appellant does not argue that this continuous landscape screening is inadequate <br />to conform to EC 9.8320(3) and it clearly is. <br />The appellant does argue that landscaping within the right-of-way cannot <br />be considered as screening, but fails to acknowledge that right-of-way is not <br />proposed for development at this time, and, even if it were, the entire right-of- <br />way area would not be subject to paving or improvement. Landscaping and <br />street trees in the City of Eugene are generally. located within the public right-of- <br />way. Moreover, the Cedar trees which are being proposed for protection, are at <br />least partially located in right-of-way that is being dedicated to preserve an <br />informal bicycle/ pedestrian connection. It is unlikely that future improvement <br />within this right-of-way area will disrupt these trees. <br />9 <br />243 <br />