LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC <br />OREGON LAND USE LAW <br />375 W. 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 204 <br />EUGENE, OR 97401 <br />TEL: 541.343.8596 <br />WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.CONI <br />March 17, 2017 <br />Mr. Fred Wilson <br />Eugene Hearing Official <br />c/o Eugene Planning and Development <br />Atrium Building <br />99 West 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: Amazon Corner TIA Appeal (City File TIA 16-7) <br />Applicant Final Argument <br />Dear Mr. Wilson: <br />BILL KLOOS <br />BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />Please accept this letter into the record as the applicant's Final Argument. <br />This letter is intended to include argument only, and, if the Hearing Official determines that any <br />contents of this letter constitutes new evidence, the applicant requests that such evidence not be <br />considered. <br />To summarize: This appeal is about compliance with a Rule that should not be applied at all, <br />because the code states this use is a permitted use, not a use that might be permitted depending <br />on how someone might subjectively evaluate the mitigation of traffic impacts from the bit of <br />traffic this will produce. Furthermore, the Rule can't be applied because the City has chosen not <br />to make it a land use regulation, and it does not become a land use regulation just because it gets <br />an honorable mention in the TIA section of the code. It is also not a land use regulation because <br />it only involves information requirements; it is not listed as a substantive standard. Finally, <br />when a TIA is done, the City traffic professionals have broad discretion, based on their technical <br />expertise, to tailor the information requirements to the site and the task at hand. They did that <br />and reduced the needed information to a homework assignment. The applicant turned that <br />homework assignment in to the City experts and got and "A" grade. This is a highly technical <br />process and product. The opponents should have a very, very high burden to discredit either the <br />scope of the homework assignment or what was turned in. <br />This argument is organized around the applicants' documents submitted at the hearing and <br />during the seven and 1 day post-hearing submittal periods. We will use this letter as more of an <br />outline that addresses issues, with reference made to parts of the documents we have already <br />submitted. <br />The hearing and post-hearing documents we have submitted are: <br />Hearing documents: <br />