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

Eugene Hearing Official April 6, 2018 Page 18 the same manner as the proposal here. The best evidence that this will work out is in the Tree preservation standards are a perennial hotspot in all reviews of PUDs in the South Hills. The standards above are inherently subjective and call for the most basic value judgments. There approach has been to preserve trees in large groupings and to require replanting of trees that may be removed at a 2:1 ratio. The approach to tree preservation is the combined effort of Oregon licensed professionals a landscape architect and an arborist. The staff has given the proposal a good shaking out, and the applicant has incorporated staff recommendations along the way; thus, we have a positive staff recommendation. The HO should approve this approach as well with the conditions recommended by staff. EC 9.8320(4) The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural environment by addressing the following: * * * * (c) Restoration or Replacement. * * * * 2. significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above shall be consistent with the acknowledged level of protection for the features. and objective standard if a definition must be found for it. 2. We recommend the finding of compliance as stated in the Staff Report at 24. EC 9.8320(4) The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural environment by addressing the following: * * * * (d)Street Trees. If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of those street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according to the process at EC 6.305. The Staff Report at 25 recommends a finding of compliance with a condition. The applicant supports that approach. EC 9.8320(5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with the following: There are three parts to this standard (a), (b), and (c). They are addressed separately in the staff report, so we take that approach here.