Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearing Official November 23, 2015 Page 9 that is was error for the City to deny the application under discretionary standards when the code did not provide an avenue for approval under clear and objective standards. 2. How the Eugene Code is structured to comply with the Needed Housing Statute Most cities have only a single set of standards for review of each approach to developing housing on land in the BLI. Corvallis is a typical example. Thus, in the Group B decision, LUBA reviewed the decision and removed from the table any grounds for denial that were based on a standard that was not clear and objective, including ambiguous standards that could be interpreted to approve or deny. That left no basis for denial; so LUBA reversed the denial. Eugene took a more sophisticated approach in giving its code a makeover in 2001. It adopted separate tracks of standards for review under discretionary standards and clear and objective standards. The former are referred to as the "General Track;" the latter as the "Needed Housing Track." And, of course, there were five kinds of reviews for housing in the Eugene Code - PUD, CUP, Site Review, Subdivisions, and Partitions. The LUBA appeal in Home Builders involved picking nits that violated the statute - removing from the "Needed Housing Track" those standards that flunked the statutory test. Here the development proposal is for needed PUD approval. The applicant applied under the "Needed Housing Track" of PUD standards. 3. This project is "needed housing" in the meaning of the Needed Housing Statute because the site is the city's Buildable Land Inventory, which is an acknowledged element of the comprehensive plan. We recommend to the Hearing Official Part I of the memo to you from City Attorney Anne Davies (Nov. 12, 2015). The city memo correctly explains that the proposal is for a "needed housing" type and the site is on the acknowledged BLI; therefore, this is a proposal for needed housing that gets the benefit of the Needed Housing Statute. (See also the more cryptic City Attny Opinion on the same subject (Aug. 15, 2008), submitted as Applicant Exhibit G.) That position is consistent with LUBA's most recent discussion of this issue in the Group B decision, which applied the current definition in the statute. LUBA said: However, because the proposal is needed housing located on inventoried buildable lands, ORS 197.307(4) prohibits the city from applying any unclear or subjective standards or conditions to approve or deny the proposed needed housing. [Group B at 15] It is consistent with every other reported case on the issue. It is also consistent with the Planning Commission's determination in the Deerbrook litigation, where the Commission found, at page 10: