Planning Commission (PC) Final Order <br />• EC 9.8320(5) regarding safe and adequate transportation systems: see PC Final Order at <br />Pages 3-4 (July 28th PC Agenda Packet, Pages 97-98). <br />• EC 9.8320(6) regarding risk to public safety: see PC Final Order at Pages 4-5 (July 28th PC <br />Agenda Packet, Pages 98-99). <br />• EC 9.8320(11)(b) regarding applicable street standards: see PC Final Order at Page 5 (July <br />28th PC Agenda Packet, Page 99). <br />LUBA Final Opinion and Order <br />• EC 9.8320(5), (6) and (11)(b): see LUBA Final Opinion and Order at Pages 29-42 (July 28th PC <br />Agenda Packet, Pages 135-148). <br />Please also refer directly to the admissible portions of the Trautman testimony and references <br />made throughout those materials, as to relevant record materials cited in support of the appeal <br />arguments. <br />Task #3: Determine How to Resolve the Landscape Screening Issue Based on the <br />Existing Record. <br />As part of its approval of a PUD, the City must find that "[t]he PUD will provide adequate <br />screening from surrounding properties including, but not limited to, anticipated building <br />locations, bulk, and height." EC 9.8320(3). The Hearings Official determined that the site plan <br />submitted as proposed by the applicant was insufficient to screen the proposed development <br />from the view of those individuals using the park and bike path to the east. However, the <br />Hearings Official determined that, with a condition of approval requiring some screening, the <br />application could be approved. He imposed the following condition of approval (Condition <br />#15): <br />"Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall revise the final site plan and landscaping <br />plan compliant with EC 9.6200 to provide landscape screening along the eastern <br />property boundary * * <br />On appeal, the Planning Commission determined that the landscape screening along the <br />eastern property boundary was not necessary ("Additional landscape screening is not required <br />along the eastern property boundary." Revised Condition #15). LUBA disagreed with the <br />Planning Commission and determined that the applicable approval criterion, EC 9.8320(3), <br />requires the applicant to provide landscaping to screen the proposed development from <br />adjacent lands; "it is not concerned with the views the PUD will have of adjacent lands." LUBA <br />held that the Planning Commission's decision to leave the eastern boundary open to the park <br />failed to screen the PUD from view from the park, as required by EC 9.8320(3). <br />Following the hearing, the City Attorney provided you with an email briefly summarizing the <br />concerns expressed by the commission at that time about requiring landscape screening, and <br />PC Agenda - Page 3 <br />