Appeal Materials (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission May 7, 2018 Page 6 e. The HO erred in failing to find that no PUD approval is possible on this site under the Needed Housing track of EC 9.8325 because the 20% grading limitation in EC 9.8325(5) precludes getting access to developable parts of the site that are less than 20% slope. f. The HO erred in finding that parts of the argument above must be rejected/denied because they are based on evidence submitted with Final Argument on April 6, after the record was closed. The HO did not identify the evidence she said was objectionable. No new evidence was submitted with Final Argument on April 6. g. The HO erred in finding that the Applicant failed to carry the burden of proof to show that no development is possible under the clear and objective standards. That burden was carried in the original application and in response to the staff's suggestions about what development was possible. h. The HO erred in applying any standards in EC 9.8320 that are not are clear and objective. The applicant identified the EC 9.8320 standards that are not clear and objective in the March 5, 2018 spreadsheet. 2. The HO erred in applying standards in the South Hills Study (1974) (SHS) to this application. The City has not shown that the SHS is a source of standards for this property and application. At no time since its adoption in 1974 has the regulatory footprint of the SHS been extended to the subject property by a governing body (the City Council or County Board) with planning authority over the subject property. The standards in the city plan and code are city law. The City has the burden to show what the standards are. If the City contends that the SHS applies to this site, then it must show that the SHS was applied to this property by a governing body with authority to apply it. Here the applicant explained why the SHS does not apply to the subject property because neither the County (up to 1987 while it had planning jurisdiction outside the City) nor the City (after 1987 when it contracted with the County to have planning authority in the UGB) enacted an ordinance or resolution applying the SHS to this property, which was outside the city limits when the SHS was initially adopted by the City in 1974. See March 5 Hearing Letter at 8-12; April 6 Final Argument at 11-12. No party in this proceeding has pointed to a decision by a governing body with planning authority over the subject property extending the SHS to this property. The city staff, city attorney, and opponents' attorney pitched various theories for why the SHS applies to this property anyway. Each of these theories was debunked in the briefing by the Applicant. See March 5 Hearing Letter at 9-12; April 6 Final Argument at 11-12. None of the alternative theories points to a decision by a governing body to apply the SHS to this site at a time when that governing body had planning authority over the site.