Applicant's Final Written Argument <br />Lombard Apartments <br />July 23, 2018 <br />Page 2 of 12 <br />'While staff understands the concern about traffic, the Eugene Code has pecific <br />standards for the location of driveways, and for traffic-specific thresholds that must be <br />reached to require additional analysis. As detailed by their traffic engineering memo, <br />and determined in the Staff Keport (beginning at page 25 of Attachment A), the <br />applicant complies with the standards for the location of their proposed access <br />connections. " <br />There is nothing in opposition material that overcomes this conclusion. Furthermore, <br />any suggestion that the Applicant is required to submit a traffic impact analysis review is not <br />well founded. As already determined in other local decisions, Needed Housing Applications <br />need not apply for TIA review. See Brenelaine Investments, LLC (SR 17-2) and Delta Ridge PUD <br />(PDT 17-3/ARB 17-2/TIA 17-2). <br />II. Willamette River Greenway Permit (WG 18-3) <br />a. The Application Meets the Criteria of EC 9.8815 and the Willamette <br />Greenway Permit is not required <br />While it is the position of the Applicant that the Applicant is not required to apply for <br />and receive a Willamette Greenway Permit, out of an abundance of caution, and because the <br />Applicant believes that it can meet the subjective criteria for approval found at EC 9.8815(1)- <br />(7), the Applicant applied for a Willamette Greenway Permit pursuant to EC 9.8800 et seq. <br />The Applicant hereby renews its request that you both approve the WG Permit <br />application on its merits because the Application meets the subjective criteria of EC 9.8815 <br />and also determine that ORS 197.307(4) controls and that no such Willamette Greenway Permit <br />is required. In the event that this Application is appealed, such determinations are merited. <br />The Applicant provided substantive responses to the subjective criteria of EC <br />9.8815(1)-(7) in its April 5, 2018 written statement (pages 38-42). The City agrees with the <br />Applicant that the substantive criteria are met. See page 2nd & 3rd page of June 9, 2018 Staff <br />memo and the findings included in the June 20, 2018 Staff memo. This conclusion is <br />confirmed in the July 16, 2018 memo from the City Attorney's Office. <br />In addition, the Applicant, in my June 20, 2018 oral testimony, provided you a detailed <br />analysis of each of the seven criteria found at EC 9.8815(1)-(7) and showed how each was <br />either not applicable on its terms, or was not clear and objective and therefore violated the <br />commands of ORS 197.307(4). 1 explained at the hearing that a review of the criteria that <br />apply to the Willamette Greenway Permit call for subjective value judgments or requires the <br />interpretation of ambiguous provisions. Below is an analysis of each of the seven Willamette <br />Greenway criteria: <br />