Sean T. Malone <br />Attorney at Law <br />259 E. Fifth Ave., <br />Suite 200-C <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Tel. (303) 859-0403 <br />Fax (650) 471-7366 <br />seanmaloneS@hotmall.com <br />May 15, 2017 <br />Via Email and First Class Mail <br />Robin Hostick, Planning Director <br />Eugene Planning and Development <br />99 W. Broadway <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />robin. a.hostick(-,ci.eugene.or. us <br />Re: Response to Applicant's March 3, 2017 letter for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD <br />Plan Application, PDT 17-001, Map 18030431 <br />Please accept this letter on behalf of the Joint FNA/LHVC Capitol Hill PUD Response <br />Committee for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD plan application. In a March 3, 2017, letter, the <br />applicant's attorney concludes that the Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application cannot meet <br />the clear and objective approval criterial contained in Eugene Code (EC) 9.8325 (i.e., the Needed <br />Housing Track) for Needed Housing because of three provisions of the EC, including the (1) 30- <br />foot landscape buffer, see EC 9.8325(3); (2) the prohibition on grading on 20% or greater slopes, <br />see EC 9.8325(5); and (3) the prohibition on development over 900-feet, see EC 9.8325(12)(a). <br />March 3, 2017 Ltr. at 3-4. The applicant then alleges that because the applicant cannot satisfy <br />these three clear and objective criteria for this particular application, the Needed Housing Statute <br />is violated (see ORS 197.307(6)) and the City cannot apply the subjective criteria contained in <br />EC 9.8320 (i.e., the General Track) to the application. As explained below, the applicant <br />misunderstands the Needed Housing statute. <br />Referring to ORS 197.307(6), the applicant alleges "that under subsection (6) of the <br />[Needed Housing statute], the City may only apply standards that are not clear and objective if <br />the applicant also has the right to develop the property under clear and objective standards as <br />provided for in ORS 197.307(4)." March 3, 2017 letter at 2. The applicant misconstrues ORS <br />197.307(6) because, under that provision, the applicant must "retain[] the option of proceeding <br />under the approval process that [applies only clear and objective criteria]." ORS 197.307(6). <br />ORS 197.307(6) does not entitle the applicant to the "right to develop" (i.e., approval of an <br />application for development). It only requires that the applicant have the option of proceeding <br />under clear and objective standards. The simple fact that the property's developable area is <br />reduced (even significantly or entirely) because the application cannot satisfy certain clear and <br />I There is not dispute that the three approval criteria listed are clear and objective. <br />