buffers the proposed development from surrounding properties. It should be <br />noted, however, that pursuant to EC 9.8325(3), the 30 foot wide landscape <br />area is required to buffer the proposed development form surrounding <br />properties, The landscape area need not buffer the proposed development <br />from surrounding streets." <br />The applicant appeals the Planning Director's interpretation. <br />B, Issues on Appeal <br />In its appeal statement, the applicant/appellant asserts three bases of appeal of the <br />planning director's interpretation: <br />I . The Planning Director's interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of <br />the Eugene Code, which does not expressly prohibit other features from being <br />located within the 30 foot wide buffer area. <br />2. The Planning Director's interpretation fails to adequately explain why adjacent <br />streets are not considered surrounding properties or to explain why, under its <br />interpretation, surrounding streets should be treated differently than streets located <br />within the proposed "needed housing" PUD, <br />3. The Planning Director's interpretation is inconsistent with the requirements of <br />ORS 197.307 due to the fact that the application of that interpretation may have <br />the effect of discouraging or adversely impacting proposals for needed housing. <br />C. Evaluation and Findings <br />The clear and plain language of EC 9.8325(3) states that a PUD must provide a 30 <br />foot buffer between the proposed developing and surrounding properties. It allows <br />nothing else. It provides no exceptions. It does not indicate in any way that there <br />may be some "discretion" to allow anything else. The appellant's argument that, <br />because the code language does not specifically exclude fences and streets, it <br />somehow must be interpreted to include those features is not well taken. Under the <br />needed housing clear and objective track, criteria must be clear and objective. No <br />discretion to allow streets, fences or other features could be considered. <br />For the further reasons well explained in the City's July 6, 2004 appeal memorandum, <br />which is incorporated here, each of the appellant's bases for appeal is denied. <br />D. Decision <br />The appeal is denied and the Planning Director's interpretation is affirmed. <br />Dated this 29th day of July, 2004, <br />DECISION OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL July 29, 2004 (CI 04-4) Page 2 of 3 <br />