APP-38 <br />with the approval criteria for a planned unit development/needed housing application based on <br />the applicant's alternative site plan and other supplemental materials for the hearing. The <br />hearings official asked a few questions about the site plan, but suggested that the applicant, <br />staff, and others might answer then during their presentations rather than at the moment. <br />Rick Satre, Schirmer Satre Group, presented the application for the applicant. Mr. Satre stated <br />that the applicant accepted the supplemental staff report but clarified that the applicant <br />intended the alternative site plan as an alternative, not a revised site plan. The applicant <br />requested the hearings official evaluate the original site plan, but that if the hearings official <br />could not approve the original site plan, then the hearings official should consider the <br />alternative site plan. The hearings official does not understand the applicant's message. <br />Regardless of whether the alternative site plan is an alterantive or a revision, it is very different <br />than the original site plan. The hearings official better understands the alternative site plan as <br />simply illustrative of how the applicant could comply with the conditions of approval <br />recommended in the original (June 2012) staff report. Ed McMahon, Executive Director of the <br />Homebuilders Association of Lane County also spoke in favor of the application. <br />Sandra Bond had a general question about whether the record would be left open for <br />submission of evidence and comments after the hearing. The hearings official stated that it <br />would and he would. discuss the open record periods after the oral testimony. <br />Theresa O'Caer, Tom Halferty, Joy Gall, Georganne Pasnick, Niki Harris, and Madrona Holden <br />testified in opposition to the application. Thirteen other people, Louise Hayes, Elizabeth Smith, <br />Lora Byxbe, Xochitl Hernande, Kathy Ging, Emily Fox, Sandra Bond, Alicia McGraw, Marcus <br />Lanskey, Lori Singels, Heather Sielick, Kent Anderson, and Elaine Weiss, consolidated their time <br />with Dan Snyder, Law Office of Charles M. Tebbitt, PC and Kevin Matthews, President of SE <br />Neighborhood Association, both representing the neighborhood association. The hearings <br />official allowed Messrs Sndyer and Matthews a total of 45 minutes to speak; they completed <br />their presentations within that period of time. <br />Emily Fox also asked whether the hearings official intended to visit the subject property. The <br />hearings official stated that he has not visited the site and would not visit the site. The hearings <br />official explained some of the procedural requirements and difficulties and appeal issues <br />common to matters where there has been a site visits and stated that he would not conduct a . <br />site visit The Eugene Code does not require the hearings official to conduct a site visit, and the <br />hearings official invited interested persons to submit photos (with explanation about the <br />photos). <br />Becky Taylor answered some questions in response to the hearings official's questions and <br />testimony, stated that based on the testimony, staff had new concerns about the application <br />and its compliance with the needed housing criteria, and asked the applicant to provide specific <br />information during the open record period. <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) <br />455 <br />