LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC <br />OREGON LAND USE LAW <br />TH <br />AVENUE, SUITE 204 <br />375 W. 4BILL KLOOS <br />EUGENE, OR 97401BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />TEL:541.343.8596 <br />WEB:WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />March 5, 2018 <br />Eugene Hearing Official <br />c/o Eugene Planning and Development <br />th <br />99 W. 10Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re:Capital Hill PUD; Applicant’s Hearing Statement on Legal Issues <br />Dear Hearings Official: <br />This lettersupplements my March 3, 2017 letter filed with the original application, and it <br />responds to some issues in the Staff Report. The new “Hearing Exhibits” discussed herein are <br />listed at the end of this letterand are attached. <br />Part A below invokes the applicant’s right to be free of review standards that are not clear and <br />objective, based on ORS 197.307(6)(a). The Staff Report disputes this entitlement, but it has not <br />adequately explained why that is so. <br />Part B explains that this review is not subject to the policies in the South Hills Study (1974) for <br />the reason that the SHS applied to the city limits in 1974, and the City has never extended the <br />footprint of that refinement plan to the area that was outside the city limits at that time, which <br />includes the area of the subject property. The City has posed a number defenses to this theory, <br />but none has sufficient legs. <br />A.The applicant requested, and is entitled to, review under only clear and objective <br />standards. ORS 197.307(4), (6). The City may not apply any standards that are not clear <br />and objective. <br />My March 3, 2017 letter, submitted with the original application, invoked the owner’s right to <br />review under clear and objective standards. It explained that because development of this site <br />requires a PUD, and because no development can be approved under the “Needed Housing” <br />PUD track standards in the code, the City may not apply any discretionary standards, even <br />though the application is filed under the “General” or discretionary track standards of EC 9.8320. <br />Please refer to the March 3 letter and the associated graphic for anexplanation of why review of <br />this development proposal under the PUD Needed Housing standards in the code would result in <br />nodwellings being approved. The code standards individually are punishing; collectively they <br />are preclude development. <br />1.The Needed Housing Statute applies directly to the city’s review of this application. <br /> <br />