LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC <br />OREGON LAND USE LAW <br />375 W. 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 204 <br />EUGENE, OR 97401 <br />TEL: 541.954.1260 <br />WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br /> <br />BILL KLOOS <br />BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br /> <br /> <br />August 14, 2024 <br /> <br />Eugene Hearing Official <br />c/o City Permit and Information Center <br />99 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97401 Via Email Only <br /> <br />Re: Braewood Hills 3rd Add PUD (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3); <br />Applicant’ Second Open Record Submittal <br />Attn: Nick Gioello, Assoc Planner <br /> <br />Dear Ms. Lucker: <br /> <br />This is the applicant’s second open record submittal. Our final argument will focus on the <br />appropriate wording for conditions of approval. This is a proposal for housing. The applicant is <br />entitled to approval subject to conditions if conditions will ensure compliance with relevant <br />standards. The applicant is also entitled to amend the proposal, including with modifications and <br />additional evidence, if that is what is needed for approval. See generally ORS 197.522. The <br />applicant believes that it is entitled to approval, as submitted here and suggested for modest <br />changes, under clear and objective standards. <br /> <br />A lot of material came in during the first open record period. The major issues responded to here <br />include: <br /> <br />1. Whether the City may use its /PD overlay standards in the discretionary track (EC <br />9.8320) or in the clear and objective track used here (EC 9.8325) to reverse preempt and <br />partially, and even wholly, nullify state Middle Housing statutes and rules, together with <br />landowners’ development rights created by those laws. See, in particular, HB 32001, <br />2019 Or Laws ch 639, codified at ORS 197A.420 (formerly ORS 197.758); OAR 660- <br />046-0205(2), set forth and analyzed below. <br /> <br />2. Whether the applicant is entitled to an exception to connectivity between the two ends of <br />Randy Lane? See the Jul 31 Staff Memo. The answer is YES. Here we request and <br />justify the exception based on the steep topography. A connecting road segment cannot <br />meet city standards due to topography. <br /> <br />3. Whether Public Works can demand full public road improvements for the proposed <br />private street segment of Randy Lane that can’t be connected through the steep <br />topography? This responds to the July 31 Staff Memo. The answer is NO. The Public <br />Works demand a discretionary exaction that (1) can’t be justified under the clear and <br />objective standards requirement and (2) otherwise can’t pass the Nollan and Dolan tests. <br />