Applicant Final Argument - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearing Official November 23, 2015 Page 16 It is worth noting that the conceptual buildout plan to be submitted with each partition application would have to cover the balance of the entire site. There is no 20% grading limitation in the Needed Housing partition standards. Therefore, the entire site is potentially developable. As a second example, a Needed Housing partition application comes with a requirement to inventory all trees on the site, have a certified arborist evaluate them according to the priorities in the code, and then demonstrate to the city how the tree preservation priorities in the code were "considered." See EC 9.8220(2)(k), which invokes the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards in EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885, and EC 9.8685(2), which sets out the requirements to demonstrate consideration of trees. The Needed Housing PUD standards require none of this. Aside from the application fees, the cost of using the serial partition process to avoid the 19 Lot Rule will be significantly higher than for the PUD process. For example: There are the professional costs of preparing five tentative partition applications, rather than just the PUD and subdivision applications. There is additional cost for the inventory and professional costs associated with the tree inventory, documentation, and arborist certification required for each partition application. There is the likely very significant costs associated with building out roads adjacent to the development site. The Staff concurs that Vivian Drive need not be developed due to the 20% slopes. Under the partition standards, however, there is no 20% grading limitation. Roads that are excepted out due to slope in the PUD process would be required under the partition process. b. Discussion The option proposed by the City would create the same number of lots, but with a lot more delay and a lot more cost. This would be contrary to the prohibition in the statute that would apply clear and objective standards (the 19 Lot Rule) but with unreasonable cost and delay in providing the needed housing. The City has not explained, and indeed cannot explain, why the 19 Lot Rule should be acceptable in an efficient process to get to a development plan, but should not be applied in the longer, slower, more expensive way to get to the same development plan. Applying the 19 Lot Rule in this PUD process begs for an explanation why it is reasonable. In summary, the Hearing Official should find that the 19 Lot Rule may not be applied because it would force the applicant into a process for development (successive partition applications) that would unreasonably increase the cost of and delay the provision of needed housing, contrary to ORS 197.307(4). Although the standard is clear and objective, it nevertheless can't be applied due to its impacts on cost and delay.