Appeal Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment E Eugene Planning Commission December 16, 2015 Page 2 The Hearings Official denied the application solely for failure to comply with the code standard commonly called the 19 Lot Rule. "The Hearings Official finds that the application should be denied because it cannot comply with EC 9.8325(6)(c) - the 19 lot rule. The proposal is for "needed housing" as used in ORS 197.303-306. However, EC 9.8325(6)(c) is a clear and objective standard with which this particular application cannot comply." The "19 Lot Rule" is: Standard EC 9.56875(c): The street layout of the proposed PUD shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public local street when the PUD exceeds 19 lots or when the sum of proposed PUD lots and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19. The 19 Lot Rule applies to Needed Housing PUDs but not to Needed Housing Partitions or any kind of approvals under the General Track with discretionary standards. The error the City is making here is the same as in Group B. There the City applied what it said was a clear and objective standard to deny a Needed Housing application. LUBA found the standard to be ambiguous, and then applied the Needed Housing Statute to tell the City it could not apply the standard. It reversed the denial. The central themes in this appeal related to the Needed Housing Statute are: Here we have the same situation as in Group B. The Hearings Official and the City Attorney found that the standard is clear and objective. It is not. "Disperse" is ambiguous. Because the term is ambiguous, and can be read to either approve or deny the use, the standard may not be applied at all, as in Group B. The City finding that the developer of this site can take its chances under the discretionary standards of the General Track is contrary to state law. That statute only allows the City to apply discretionary standards if the "applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process" that applies clear and objective standards. ORS 197.307(6). So, the city position is contrary to the statute. When the City included this land in the Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) it vouched to the state that the land would be available for residential development under clear and objective standards. Now the City is saying that is it is not available. That finding is contrary to the acknowledged plan and contrary to the Needed Housing Statute, which guarantees the right to develop under clear and objective standards, not the right to be denied under clear and objective standards. Whether the 19 Lot Rule is clear or ambiguous, the City may not apply it to deny development. The Commission should reverse the denial and approve the Tentative PUD. PC Agenda - Page 13