Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission December 16, 2015 Page 9 Because Condition 12 is ambiguous regarding whether any development (including needed housing) of Tract B is allowed at all, and is not clear and objective, the city cannot apply Condition 12 to prohibit the proposed needed housing, or as a vehicle to subject the proposal to subjective approval standards at LDC 10 2.5.40.04." [Group B at 15 line 1.1 The very same rationale applies here. If the Commission agrees with the staff and the applicant, that the standard is ambiguous, then it will need to choose between two competing interpretations - one that allows the use and one that prohibits the use. In that event the Commission must find that the 19 Lot Rule may not be applied under the statute, as explained in Group B. The Hearings Official attempts to distinguish the Group B LUBA opinion from this application. Decision at 16 para 2. There is no distinction; the holding of Group B is squarely on point. The key holdings from Group B are quoted above. Note that the Hearings Official distinguishes the case because it turned on an ambiguous 1981 condition that applied to the site. However, the City treated the 1981 condition as a "standard;" LUBA explained that the statute applies to both "standards and conditions;" and LUBA explained it is inunaterial whether the standards and conditions are brought forward from previous decisions or are in the current code. The Hearings Official, at page 15 second last para, also incorporates as findings the arguments of the City Attorney in Part II of her November 12 memo. We address those findings here. In Part II.A. the City Attorney says that this application may be denied because it fails to comply with a clear and objective standard. As we have explained above, the standard is not clear and objective. The number 19, of course, is clear, but what it means to "disperse" is ambiguous. Does disperse mean a secondary access is required? Because disperse can have alternate meanings to approve or deny, it is not clear and objective and may not be applied. In Part II.B. the City Attorney says that state law does not require that land in the BLI must be developable in all instances under clear and objective standards; this developer can always apply and take its chances under the general standards. The City Attorney has it backwards; completely backwards. The statute says that the City may only apply standards in a discretionary track if the applicant has the right to develop the site under clear and objective standards. See ORS 197.307(6)(a) quoted above. Here, the only way to allow development under clear and objective standards is to not apply the 19 Lot Rule, whether it is viewed as clear and objective or not. The rationale for this is simple. When the City submitted its Buildable Land Inventory for acknowledgment, it vouched to the state that the BLI lands included enough acres for 20 years of residential development. The City can't tell the state that it is developable and later say that it is not developable. That is what the Hearings Official and the City Attorney are asking the Commission to say here.