3rd Open Record Period: Applicant’s final rebuttal (4-6-18)

Eugene Hearing Official April 6, 2018 Page 14 4. Finally, to the extent that any of the SHS policies do apply, the Staff Report at 8-15 has gotten it right in its review of each policy and its finding of compliance. We offer the following additional comments with respect to the specific SHS policies addressed in the Staff Report: the policies non-mandatory standards for this decision. also written in non-mandatory terms. more subtle than is usually recognized. The City has a keen public interest, as stated in the Goal 10 population. Laurel Hill Plan 1. Our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards identifies three policies that are relevant, but explains why they may not be applied because they are not clear and objective or they do not state a mandatory standard. 2. The Staff Report at pages 16-18 addresses the same three Laurel Hill Plan policies and explains why this proposal complies. The Staff Report also address several additional policies Transportation Policies 1, 2 and 4, and East Laurel Hill Area Policy 6. None of these appear directly applicable to this proposal. To the extent that any of the policies addressed in the Staff 3. Opponent Jason Brown quoted Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Policy 1 in support of his complaint that future dwellings would be visible from the Ribbon Trail. The referenced policy relates to residential density and discouraging large apartment complexes. These policies do not relate to views from the Ribbon Trail. EC 9.8320(3) The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and height. 1. Our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards makes this standard less than clear and objective and therefore not applicable. 2. The Staff Report at 18-19 addresses this standard in a competent fashion; we recommend those findings to the HO.