THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED. <br /> <br />#### <br /> <br />The Response Committee notes below other issues with the 2/28/18 Staff Report: <br /> <br />1. Page 4 (middle of the page) uses incorrect lot numbers for the lots proposed as having the <br />are <br />option to construct up to three attached single family units (apartments). These two lots <br />Lots 16 and 17; not Lots 17 and 18. <br /> <br />2. Page 6 (bottom of the page) again incorrectly uses Lots 17 and 18 for the lots proposed as <br />having the option to construct up to three attached single family units (apartments). These <br />areLots 16 and 17; not Lots 17 and 18. <br />two lots <br /> <br />3. Page 7 (middle of the page) incorrectly claims that the <br />additional opportunities for a range of choice in housing types consistent with the intent of <br /> <br /> <br />The Response Committee repeats its position that allowing two unknown lot buyers (if Lots <br />16 and/or Lots 17 sell in the future) to decide if those two lots will contain a single family <br />residence, a duplex or a triplex does not constitute a This <br />is very haphazard methodology for meeting Eugenes housing shortage. <br /> <br />4. Page 9 of the Staff Report (top) indicates that only five trees will be removed in order to <br />accommodate the storm water drainage channel that will run between Lots 13 and 14. <br /> <br />The Response Committee counts 5 trees in this portion of Tract A with a red X indicating <br />removal. At least 6 other trees within or adjacent to this area are also shown on the Site <br />Plans. <br /> <br />5. Page 9 of the Staff Report (top) also indicates <br />the preserved areas of the eastern lots also act as an uninterrupted natural wildlife <br /> <br /> <br />The Committee has mentioned in several areas throughout its Response Document that the 6 <br />foot fence proposed for the entire length of the eastern boundary of the site prevents (rather <br />than promotes) the movement of wildlife. <br /> <br />6. Page 15 of the Staff Report (middle) discusses the thin strip of land at the very southern edge <br />of the property that the Applicant offered to the City for access to the Ribbon Trail. This <br />offer of land was turned down by the City because <br /> <br /> <br />The Response Committee points out a double standard here. How can land be too steep to be <br />including, possibly, a rear yard with an estimated slope in excess of 45%? <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />