Eugene Planning Commission December 5, 2013 <br />c / o Becky Taylor <br />Associate Planner <br />99 West 10`I' Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Via E-mail beck rig. Jay lor@ci.eugene.or.us & Hand Delivery <br />Established 1970 <br />Celebrating 42 years <br />of Excellence! <br />Attorney <br />Zack P. Mittge <br />zmittge@etigenelaw.com <br />400 WOOLWORTH <br />BUILDING <br />940 Willamette Street <br />f. <br />L: PO Box 10886 <br />Eugene, Oregon <br />97440 <br />PHONE <br />541686-9160 <br />Fax <br />541 343-8693 <br />www.eugenelaw.com <br />Re: Response to November 22, 2013 Appeal Statement <br />Our Client: Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing, LLC <br />Our File No. 10697 / C1343 <br />Dear Commissioner: <br />On behalf of our clients, Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing (OMC), we <br />submit this letter in response to the appeal of its Tentative Planned Unit <br />Development Approval (PDT 13-001). In accordance with the appeal process <br />specified at Eugene Code section 9.7655(2), this response is based on the <br />evidence already in the record, and no new evidence in being provided to the <br />Commission. <br />Please include this letter in the record of these proceedings, and provide us <br />with a copy of the City's final decision in this matter. <br />For ease of reference, this response will follow the outline of the materials <br />submitted by Mr. Thorns on November 22, 2013. <br />1. The Metro Plan Policies Cited By the Appellant Are Not Applicable <br />to the Land Use Application and The Hearings Official Adequately <br />Addressed the Issues Raised by the Appellant. <br />The appellant assigns as error the Hearings Official's alleged failure to <br />address Metro Plan policies F.26 and F.36 in his decision. However, neither <br />of these provisions are mandatory approval criteria. Accordingly, failure to <br />address these provisions would provide no basis to reverse or remand the <br />Hearings Official's decision, and, in any case, the Hearings Official addressed <br />the substance of the claims advanced by the applicant in his decision. <br />Metro Plan policy F.26 states: <br />"Provide'for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent <br />land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of <br />walking." <br />As is clear from the context of this provision it is not a mandatory approval <br />criteria for this Tentative Planned Unit Development application. Rather, the <br />Metro Plan finding 35 ties this provision to a state requirement that local <br />government's adopt land use regulations to provide a pedestrian network and <br />not to a particular development proposal: <br />1 <br />235 <br />Attorneys and <br />Counselors at Law <br />