Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

neighborhood, for "low density" residential development, based on the property's attributes. The Response Committee and several neighbors argue that the proposed development also does not satisfy several additional Metro Plan policies. The Response Committee cites as applicable the following additional Residential Land Use and Housing Elements: Policy AJ]: Generally locate higher density residential developments near employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or with transportation efficient nodes. Policy A.20: Encourage home ownership of all housing types, particularly for low income households. The Response Committee challenges compliance with Policy A.11 based on the proximity of the subject property to employment, commercial and transportation systems. They also note that the development proposed for this site will not be accessible for low-income households. As with the other Residential Land Use and Housing Element policies, these policies provide direction to the city, and are not mandatory approval criteria for the proposed development. Moreover, as noted above, and consistent with the Metro Plan designation, the applicant's request does not propose a higher density development for the subject property. The Response Committee also asserts the proposed development is inconsistent with Environmental Design Element, Policy E.2, which states: Natural vegetation, natural water features and drainage-ways shall he protected and retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those natural features. This policy does notpreclude increasing their conveyance capacity in an environmentally responsible manner. The Response Committee acknowledges that the proposed site plan designates approximately one-third of subject property for preservation, which would retain that portion of the site's natural vegetation. However, they argue both that there is `no guarantee' that these areas won't be directly impacted and that, even if not directly impacted, they would be indirectly impacted by the proposed development. The provisions of this Metro Plan policy are primarily implemented through the specific code provisions, addressed below, that provide direction as to how the site's natural features are to be protected consistent with the property's zoning. To the extent this Metro Plan policy could be construed to apply directly to the proposed development site, by its terms, this policy directs preservation "to the maximum extent practical." It does not preclude development and must be implemented in conjunction and consistent with the property's urban residential designation. The proposed development preserves the natural vegetation on approximately one-third of the development site, in furtherance of this Metro Plan policy. Finally, the Committee asserts that the proposed development does not satisfy Energy Element, Policy J.8, which states: Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 15