Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

assessment to be made is one of legislative nature and not one of a quasi-judicial nature. There is no indication in ORS 197.303 or 197.307 that a city must make an individualized assessment of needed housing at particular price ranges and rent levels for particular housing projects as proposed through a quasi-judicial land use process. While the Hearings Official might agree with Mr. Williamson that EC 9.8325(1) and the related statutes could be more precisely worded, the city has shown how the present application adequately addresses "needed housing." Importantly, Mr. Williamson did not argue, nor does the record suggest, that the city's BLI or HNA, which are acknowledged, fail to comply with any applicable statutes including ORS 197.303-307. As to Mr. Williamson's assertion that ORS 197.304(1) requires a separate and discreet BLI for Eugene in order to comply with ORS 197.307 and EC 9.8325(1) - that is not what the statute says. To the extent that it is relevant, what ORS 197.304(1) appears to forbid is one city within the joint UGB seeking to satisfy its needed housing obligations by shifting the provision of such housing to the adjacent jurisdiction. This criterion is met. EC 9.8325(2): The proposed land uses and densities within the PUD are consistent with the land use designation(s) shown on the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram, as refined in any applicable' refinement plan. The applicant correctly notes that the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the Metro Plan, which establishes an allowed density "through 10 units per gross acres." The South Hills Study is the applicable refinement plan, which further limits the allowable density to a maximum of 5 units per gross acre for the subject area. The applicant's proposal for 10 single-family homes on 5.19 gross acres would result in a density of 1.9 units per acre, which is within the allowable limits. The staff decision is not disputed. The criterion is met. EC 9.8325(3): The PUD provides a buffer area between the proposed development and surrounding properties by providing at least a 30 foot wide landscape area along the perimeter of the PUD according to EC 9.6210(7). Staff dPrkinn- The applicant's plans show the required 30-foot wide buffer around the perimeter of the property. The applicable landscape standard at EC 9.6210(7)(a)(5) Massed Landscape Standard (L-7) requires 70 percent of the 30-foot perimeter buffer to be covered by living plant material. The applicant asserts that this standard is met by existing vegetation along the perimeter of the subject property, and has provided evidence in the form of photo documentation. Based on the available evidence, this criterion is met. Hearings Official Findings: As noted above in the Summary of Decision, the plain wording of the text seeks a buffer from surrounding properties. The Hearings Official reads this standard to be achievable even where a road may need to pierce a section of the buffer to provide access to interior lots. However, I decline to Hearings Official Decision (PDT 15-1/ ARA 15-13) 8