Appeal Materials (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

The applicant concurs in all the recommended conditions. The applicant also concurs with the Staff Report conclusion, stated at page 44, that this development proposal is exempt from Geological and Geotechnical Analysis requirements of EC 9.6710 for the reason that the site as a whole is on the acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. EC 9.8320(11): The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental quality. 1. The operative standard here is "minimal," which is an inherently subjective standard; hence this standard should not be applied under the Needed Housing Statute. 2. The Staff Report at 55-56 provides a competent summary of the evidence in the record that supports a finding of "minimal off-site impacts" on the relevant dimensions. The HO should concur with the staff and incorporate those findings. EC 9.8320(12): The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. 1. As is the case with the standard above, "reasonably compatible" requires the most subjective value judgment, which is beyond the scope of the Needed Housing Statute allows. 2. The Staff Report at 57-58 summarizes the evidence that support a "reasonably compatible" finding by the HO. We recommend that analysis. Conclusion As is evident from the scale and intensity of the opposition, this neighborhood does not want this infill project at this site, even though the City has determined that this site is intended for just this kind of use at about this proposed density. Perhaps the best recommendation we have for approval is the positive and detailed review by the city staff. We hope the HO concurs with the applicant and the city staff and approves the use as proposed to be conditioned. Sincerely, ow x&" Bill Kloos Client Schirmer Satre Group APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018