AM <br />WPIanning <br />Memorandum <br />Date: November 4, 2015 <br />To: Kenneth Helm, Eugene Hearings Official <br />From: Erik-Berg Johansen, Assistant Planner, (541) 682-5437 <br />Subject: Chamotee Trails PUD (PDT 15-1; ARA 15-13) <br />The applicant's legal representative, Bill Kloos, submitted a "hearing statement" to the Hearings <br />Official on November 3rd, 2015. First, Mr. Kloos argues that staff is recommending "the 19-Lot <br />Rule" to be applied "contrary to its terms." More specifically, Mr. Kloos debates that a "public <br />local street" is a "public local street," whether it is improved or unimproved. This is a reasonable <br />assumption, and in fact, staff agrees with Mr. Kloos. We are not saying that West Amazon Drive is <br />not a public local street. However, this does not change the fact that a portion of West Amazon <br />Drive will be unusable for vehicle traffic. The unimproved portion of West Amazon Drive will <br />preclude the PUD from being able to disperse traffic onto more than one public local <br />street. Thus, the criterion is not satisfied. Staff would also like to mention that in the past the <br />Homebuilders Association (working with Mr. Kloos) challenged various Needed Housing <br />approval criteria at the time of adoption as not being "clear and objective." Interestingly, the <br />Homebuilders did not include EC 9.8325(6)(c) (the 19-Lot Rule) in those prior legal challenges. <br />Second, Mr. Kloos states that "The City may not apply a standard [the 19 Lot Rule] that is clear <br />and objective but is so stringent as to make development approval unobtainable." As an example, <br />he uses an argument that prevailed in the "Home Builders" decision where LUBA agreed that an <br />approval criterion related to negative impacts on natural drainage courses is impossible to <br />meet. In that case, LUBA agreed that "no PUD could possibly comply with LUCU 9.8325(10)." Mr. <br />Kloos takes that proposition and morphs it into an assertion that the 19-Lot Rule cannot be <br />applied because it is impossible for "this applicant" to meet. EC 9.8325(6)(c) is not impossible <br />for "any PUD" to meet; accordingly, Mr. Kloos' reference to this Homebuilder's case is irrelevant. <br />Further, LUBA provided the following in their decision in Shamrock Homes, LLC v. City of <br />Springfield, 68 Or LUBA 1 (2013): <br />Fn7 on page 22: Petitioner also argues that, if the city applies needed housing site design <br />review standards that are not clear and objective, the city cannot count any lands subject to <br />such standards toward its Goal 10 inventory of buildable lands. Petition for Review 37. We <br />do not understand the argument. If the city adopts unclear or subjective standards for <br />needed housing, or it applies unclear or subjective standards to approve or deny needed <br />City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 • 541-682-5572 Fax <br />www.eugene-or. gov/plan n in g <br />