ER-12 <br />1 B. The City's Decision <br />2 We understand Neighbors to argue that the city improperly construed EC <br />3 9.2751(1)(b) and EC 9.2751(l)(c)(1) by including acreage that is encumbered <br />4 by easements for sewer and water lines in calculating the net density of the <br />5 development.' ORS 197.835(9)(a)(D). According to Neighbors, the easements <br />5 are "other public facilities" that EC 9.275 1 (1)(c)(1) requires be excluded from <br />7 the acreage that is considered part of the residential use, and are also not <br />8 "reserved for the exclusive use of the residents in the development" and for that <br />9 reason should not be included in the acreage of land considered part of the <br />10 residential use. <br />11 The staff report calculated the net density of the proposed PUD by taking <br />12 the total square feet included in 2.3 acres (102,808), and subtracting (1) the <br />13 square footage of the right of way dedications being required (4,024) and (2) <br />14 the square footage of the area encumbered by the sewer easement along the east <br />15 property line (3,230), to conclude that the property contains 95,554 square feet <br />16 of net area and an allowable density of 30 units per acre. Record 1007-08. <br />17 The hearings officer disagreed with the staff s exclusion of the sewer <br />18 easement area from the acreage of land considered part of the residential use, <br />19 and concluded that areas encumbered by easements are not "other public <br />20 facilities" that must be excluded from the calculation of net density within the <br />21 meaning of EC 9.2751(1)(c)(1): <br />' As far as we can tell, Meadows agreed to grant an easement to the Eugene <br />Water and Electric Board (EWEB) for construction of a water line on the <br />property, but that easement had not been granted at the time the decision was <br />rendered. <br />Page 12 <br />000001 <br />