HomeMy WebLinkAbout3rd Open Record Period: Applicant’s final rebuttal (4-6-18)
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC
OREGON LAND USE LAW
TH
375 W. 4AVENUE, SUITE 204 BILL KLOOS
EUGENE, OR 97401 BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM
TEL: 541.343.8596
WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM
April 6, 2018
Eugene Hearing Official
c/o Eugene Planning and Development
th
99 W. 10 Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: Capital Hill PUD; Final Argument
Dear Hearings Official:
included here.
We organize this letter using the positive Staff Report as an outline. We reference our March 5
Spreadsheet of Standards which addresses and critiques standards in summary fashion.
We ask that the HO keep a few Big Picture points in mind when working her way through the
details of this final argument.
This is a proposal to infill on R-1 land that is surrounded by land developed with similar
uses and at similar densities. This is where the City, as a matter of policy, has determined
that development should happen.
The density proposed here is well below what is allowed by the plan and the zone, and it
is at about the density the City assumes in its Buildable Land Inventory will be put on
land in this part of town.
South Hills PUDs trigger a raft of discretionary standards, which offer opponents a long
list of things to complain about and a long list of avenues opponents can take to argue we
all issues in the eyes of all neighbors. Getting a proposal together that attracts a positive
staff report is a major accomplishment.
We have a recommendation for approval from staff, subject to conditions. The applicant
can live with all the conditions.
With those points as an introduction, we offer the following argument.
DESCRIPTION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST
This development proposal is accurately described in the Staff Report at page 4.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 2
OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS -- NEEDED HOUSING STATUTE
The Staff Report at pages 4-tion of the Needed Housing Statute
in the original 2017 application materials. We responded to the Staff Report in our March 5
Hearing Letter. Staff and the City Attorney provided more evidence and argument in the first
open record period. We respond to that here.
Please see our Hearing Letter dated March 5 for our basic pitch on how the state law and city
code apply to the facts of this site.
Our March 5 hearing letter summarizes the law as follows: The Needed Housing Statute applies
directly to the C
applicant proposing to develop housing. An applicant is entitled to review under only clear and
objective standards. ORS 197.307(4). That right has been in place since 1981. A city may apply
an alternative review track with standards that are not clear and objective only applicant
retains the option of proceeding under the approval process
ORS 197.307(6). That option has been in place only since 1997. These basic rules reflect the
plain language of the statute, and they are not contested by the City or any party.
This applicant explained from the start that it is invoking its statutory right to review under clear
and objective standards. The applicant explained that it needs a PUD approval to develop this
site, but no PUD approval is possible under the Needed Housing track in the code (EC 9.8325).
The applicant has fully explained how the standards in the Needed Housing track
preclude any development approval when applied to this site. See March 3, 2017, application
letter; March 5, 2018, hearing letter at page 4; and March 5, 2018, supporting Spreadsheet of
.
StandardsConsidering no PUD can be approved on this site under the Needed Housing
standards in EC 9.8325, the applicant necessarily applied under the General Track in the code
that contains discretionary standards (EC 9.8320). The applicant explained in its hearing letter
that in the context of applying under the General Track, as the Court of Appeals has instructed in
its Recovery House VI decision, the applicant is entitled to a determination from the Hearing
Official whether discretionary standards may be applied at all. Put differently, the applicant has
shown that the General Track is the only route through the code to get a PUD approval for any
kind of development on this site. It applied under that route. Since there is not a route available
with only clear and objective standards, the City is prohibited from applying any discretionary
standards in this application.
Finally, in conjunction with its March 5 hearing letter, the applicant provided a Spreadsheet of
Standards and explained whether each standard is sufficiently clear and objective that it may be
applied. Furthermore, pages 6-8 of the hearing letter include a summary of the law addressing
which kinds of standards are clear and objective and which are not.
of ORS 197.307(6).
The applicant needs a PUD approval for this development site. The Needed Housing standards in
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 3
EC 9.8325 preclude any development approval on this site. The statute prohibits the City from
applying any standards that are not clear and objective. In sum, ORS 197.307(6) prohibits the
City from applying any discretionary standards under the General Track because no PUD
approval is possible for this site under the Needed Housing track.
The City Attorney (in her March 21 memo to the Hearing Official), the Planning Staff (in its
March 21 memo to the Hearing Official)(March 21 Sean Malone
Lttr to Hearing Official) all pitch slightly di
197.307(6) shields the applicant from discretionary standards. We address those defenses
separately below.
then debunks the misstated legal theory.
The memo from City Attorney Sommers at page 1 para 1 theory as
objective
standards. The City Attorney repeats this mischaracterization at page 2 para 3:
197.307(4) requires clear and objective standards that also allow a path to
That is not 2017 letter and our March 5 hearing letter
explain that no PUD can be approved under the Needed Housing standards at EC 9.8325.
r the city Needed
Hearing letter at 4 item 4. Here we say it again. No PUD can
not just the one
proposed here.
The City Attorney memo ORS 197.307(4) simply
requires that the City \[sic\] provide the path for review under prescriptive clear and objective
no PUD, regardless of how it is designed, can be approved on this site
under the code in the Needed Housing Track with clear and objective standards.
The City Attorney memo assumes throughout that some PUD can be approved on the site under
the clear and objective standards of EC 9.8325. However, the memo: (1) never explains what
PUD design might be approvable under clear and objective standards; and more significantly, the
memo t that no PUD can be approved under
EC 9.8325 or its explanation of why that is so. To be more specific, the City attorney memo
never explains how development could proceed consistent with the limitation on grading 20%
slopes when the only land on the site that is less than 20% slopes must be accessed by grading
land on the site with 20% or steeper slopes.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 4
Response to Staff: The staff suggestion that the applicant can develop two or three lots by
a simple partition under clear and objective standards is not a substitute for the applicant
right to a PUD proposal that is approvable under clear and objective standards.
Furthermore, no partition is possible under clear and objective standards.
Our March 5 hearing letter and our remarks at the hearing took extreme umbrage with the single
sentence in the Staff Report the suggested the applicant could get several lots approved on the
development site under clear and objective standards as an alternative to PUD review under
discretionary standards. See hearing letter at 5 item (b), which critiques the Staff Report
assertion that:
Based on a review of the site plan submitted by the applicant, staff believe that at least
two additional units could be developed on the site if the applicant chose to proceed
under the needed housing approval criteria.
The staff pledged at the hearing to flesh out this conclusory statement. Staff did that in their
March 21 memo. We respond to that here.
As an initial matter, and in contrast to the City Attorney memo, the March 21 Staff memo
correctly states the position of the applicant throughout. The PUD Needed Housing standards
contain a limitation on grading 20% slopes at EC 9.8325(5) that precludes an approval of any
PUD on this site under the clear and objective standards in that track. The standards collectively
are too stringent. Consequently, the guarantee of ORS 197.307(6) allows the applicant to apply
under the General Track in EC 9.8320 but does not permit the City to apply the discretionary
standards in that track.
developed appears at the bottom of
page 2 of the March 21 staff memo. To summarize the staff position:
1. The southernmost part of the site is a discrete, vacant legal lot with more than 100 feet
of frontage on Capital Drive.
2. The southernmost legal lot could be partitioned into two or three additional parcels.
3. Because that legal lot is below 900 feet elevation, the partition could be done without a
PUD and under the Needed Housing partition standards of EC 9.8220.
4. The partition would include one front lot and two flag lots.
5. Staff assumes that no street would be required.
There are fatal legal shortcomings with this staff position, which we discuss below, following a
brief, fuller factual description of the site.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 5
The unit of land staff refers to is shown on the Schirmer Satre graphic attached to the March 21,
2018 Staff memo, which also is attached to the March 3, 2017 application letter from this office.
That unit of land is one of a number of tracts shown on the Schirmer Satre graphic as being
.
In rebuttal of this staff theory, the applicant provided more information about this unit of land
(in the Schirmer Satre letter of March 30 and Hearing Exhibit X
(Dreyer Legal Lot Research 2015 Table and Graphic) that was submitted with that letter. That
information shows that: the Staff Partition Tract is 1.48 acres in size; it is entirely below the 900-
foot elevation; and it extends from Capital Drive on the west to the Ribbon Trail on the east. The
Schirmer Satre letter of March 30 explains that the average slope along the southern boundary of
the tract is 37.39 percent.
Hearing Exhibit X
on the graphic. It is information from initial site planning. Early site planning efforts
investigated the possibility of developing the site using existing Legal Lots, which would be
moved about with property line adjustments. Based on deed research, a Table was prepared
showing possible legal lots based on subdivision and deed history. A copy of that Table and
associated mapping is included with Hearing Exhibit X. The Staff Partition Tract is shown on
the Table and related graphic.
As explained in the Schirmer Satre March 30 letter, planning for site development by adjusting
the lines of existing legal lots was abandoned in 2015 after the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 20526, which limits any property line adjustments in this particular neighborhood to just 5
feet per year. See Ordinance No. 20526 (March 12, 2014), codified at EC 9.8415(6)Within
the R-1 zone in the city-recognized boundaries of * * * Fairmount Neighbors * * * property lines
may only be adjusted up to 5 feet, measured perpendicularly from the current location of the
property line.By restricting property line adjustments to a mere 5 feet per year, the City
Council effectively forced the owners into the PUD process for any appreciable residential
development. The early planning for the site never got to verifying the legal lots. However, all
of the basic information about potential legal lots got carried forward to this application. Thus,
on the Site Plan. See Schirmer Satre
March 30 letter for details.
Hearing Exhibit X shows that the Staff Partition Tract is just a portion of Lot 5 in the Plat of
Capital Hill, recorded January 12, 1912. There is no evidence of a subdivision or partition that
created the Staff Partition Tract as a discrete, lawful unit of land. The Staff Partition Tract has
no record of being conveyed as a discrete unit of land. It is a part of Tax Lot 201. Tax Lots 100
and 201 were annexed in 2014. See Hearing Exhibit W, Annexation Res. No. 5122 (Oct. 27,
2014), submitted with the Schirmer Satre March 30 letter. Staff have not shown that the Staff
Partition Tract has any record of having been reviewed by the City and verified as a Legal Lot in
Legal Lot
. A lot of record that has boundary lines that were established:
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 6
(A) Through a partition or subdivision procedure,
(B) By a deed that was signed before April 2, 1962, or
(C) Through approval of an application to validate a unit of land consistent
with ORS 92.176.
See generally, Schirmer Satre March 30 letter.
Based on all of the above, the Table showing legal lot status of all the units of land on this site
notes the Staff Partition Tract as a . The Staff Partition Tract has not
previously been found to be a legal lot by the City. It is not shown to be a legal lot by the City
staff here. The applicant has not vouched that it is a legal lot.
interim label the applicant applied to that unit of land in connection with a development strategy
that had to be abandoned when the City changed the rules for property line adjustments, as
explained in the Schirmer Satre March 30 letter.
With that as background, we discuss separately below the legal shortcomings in
position that the potential to divide the 1.48-acre Staff Partition Tract into three parcels is an
adequate legal basis to deny the applicant the benefit of a PUD application reviewed under only
clear and objective standards.
1. Partitioning the 1.48-acre Staff Partition Tract into three parcels under clear and
objective partition standards in EC 9.8220 is not the ORS 197.307(6) guaranteed
proceedingto dividing the 13.5 acres under the discretionary PUD track of EC 9.8320.
Staff is suggesting partitioning the property into three parcels instead of dividing the property
into 34. This is not an apples-to-apples analysis. It is an oranges-to-kumquats analysis.
The Hearing Official needs to honor the correct order of analysis
theory. That starts by standing in the thicket of the discretionary PUD standards of EC 9.8320
and then looking across the fence to the clear and objective PUD standards in EC 9.8325. The
application is for a PUD. If the City wants to apply any discretionary PUD standards and the
applicant has invoked its statutory rights to clear and objective standards, then the staff must
show that the site can be developed with a PUD under clear and objective standards; not that
some small part of the site could be partitioned under clear and objective standards. The HO
should look at the Needed Housing PUD standards and ask whether they would allow approval
of any PUD on this siteute prohibits the HO from applying
any discretionary standards in the General track of EC 9.8320. The HO should not entertain any
questions about partition possibilities.
Below we examine the partitioning option anyway, and we show why the code prohibits the
partition advocated by the staff.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 7
2. The 1.48-acre Staff Partition Tract cannot be partitioned alone in order to avoid the
PUD process because the code prohibits developing that 1.48-acre tract standing alone; the
adjacent property in the same ownership must be included, and that triggers a PUD.
EC 9.8210(2) governs applications for partitions and requires that Applications include all
contiguous property under the same ownership as the subject property, and are signed by the
owner of the property., the -acre chunk of the
larger ownership, cannot, as a matter of law, be partitioned separately from the balance of the
circumvent
1
clear and objective standards is a
As the balance of the adjacent property must be included in any partition application, it is plainly
clear that a PUD approval is needed when the relevant dots in the code are connected.
The applicability standards for the PUD process appear at EC 9.8305 and capture this site when
the code language in 9.8210(2), quoted above, is honored and the all of the property in the same
ownership is considered together. EC 9.8305 provides, in relevant part:
Applicability
. PUD provisions shall be applied when any of the following
conditions exist:
(1)
The proposal is subject to review and approval through the PUD process
according to an adopted refinement plan, including but not limited to, property
within the boundary of the South Hills Study where all or a portion of a
development site is:
(a) Between an elevation of 500 feet and 701 feet, and the
development site is at least 4 acres with areas of the development site
containing slopes that exceed 20%.
(b) On property above 701 feet in elevation, except partitions that do
not include the creation of a public street, unless an alternate review
procedure is approved pursuant to EC 9.9630(3)(a).
(c) Above an elevation of 900 feet, except for a land division
undertaken by or on behalf of a governmental entity in order to
preserve, manage, or expand park, open space, or natural resource
bold italicbold italic
The in (c) above is triggered here. The language in (b) above is potentially
triggered if a new street is required in connection with the partition.
In summary, if the owner of the Staff Partition Tract were to apply tomorrow for a simple
partition of just that 1.48 acres under the clear and objective standards of EC 9.8220, the City
staff response to that application in the completeness review process would be:
1 Walter Matthau (as Sen. Russell Long) to Kevin Costner (as D.A. Jim Garrison) in J.F.K. (1991).
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 8
-parcel partition of the Staff Partition
Tract under the clear and objective partition standards of EC 9.8220. However,
under EC 9.8210(2), your application must include adjacent property in the same
ownership, which includes the balance of the property owned by Tom and
Cynthia Dreyer. When the adjacent land in the same ownership is included, the
total acreage is over four acres, it includes land above the 900 feet elevation, and
it also includes land that exceeds 20% slope. Therefore, if you want land use
approval to divide this property for development, the provisions of the Planned
Unit Development overlay zone at EC 9.8305(1) require that you do so through
the Planned Unit Development process of EC 9.8300 et seq. You have the option
of applying for review under the General standards of EC 9.8320, which allow the
City Hearing Official to approve or deny the application largely in her discretion.
Or you may apply for review under the Needed Housing standards of EC 9.8325,
which are clear and objective, but under which no PUD on this site can be
approved due to the slopes exceeding 20%. The part of your development site
that is 20% slope or less can be reached without grading slopes that may not be
graded under EC 9.8325(5). We look forward to reviewing your PUD
3. Even if the 1.48-acre Staff Partition Parcel could be considered ala carte, a partition
application cannot meet the clear and objective standards stated in EC 9.8220.
If the Hearing Official entertains the Staff Partition Parcel strategy as an avenue for the City to
comply with the statute despite the discussion in item 2 above, then the staff has the burden of
showing that a partition of the 1.48-acre site under EC 9.8220 can be done with a certainty. Staff
has not done that and the required dots in the co.
(an this tract is a legal
lot.
The lot proposed to be divided in the partition application is a legal lot.
Staff assumes that the 1.48 acres is a legal lot. They have not proven that. The applicant has
explained the dubious legal lot pedigree of this tract standing alone in the discussion above.
(b3,500 sq. ft. absent
discretionary relief.
EC 9.8220(2) invokes the lot standards of EC 9.2760, and the standards in EC 9.2760 Table set a
13,500 sq ft maximum lot size in the R-1 zone. At 1.48 acres, one or more of the partition lots
cannot meet this standard and would require discretionary relief to approve.
(c absent
discretionary relief.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 9
EC 9.8220(2) invokes the street connectivity standards in EC 9.6815
. EC 9.6815(2) requires:
(b) The proposed development shall include street connections in the direction
of all existing or planned streets within 1/4 mile of the development site.
The proposed development shall also include street connections to any
streets that abut, are adjacent to, or terminate at the development site.
(c) The proposed development shall include streets that extend to
undeveloped or partially developed land that is adjacent to the
development site or that is separated from the development site by a
drainage channel, transmission easement, survey gap, or similar property
condition. The streets shall be in locations that will enable adjoining
These sections require extending a street through the Staff Partition Tract to the east property
line, to provide a connection to the vacant property to the east and to the existing Floral Hill
Drive. The City may grant exceptions to this connectivity requirement if the applicant proves up
on certain facts. See EC 9.6815(2)(g). However, proving up for an exception is based on non-
clear and objective standards, as reflected in EC 9.6815(2)(g). The staff memo suggests that the
circumstances would justify not requiring street connectivity. However, that is guesswork about
how discretionary standards might be applied to the connectivity standards.
to a partition track with discretionary standards and say that it provides a clear and objective
alternative to review of a PUD.
In summary, partitioning the 1.48-acre tract of land identified by the staff into two or three lots to
allow dwellings to be built on those lots cannot be accomplished under the code, even if houses
could be built on the 37% slope of those lots.
Response to Opponents: Attorney Malone seems to argue that is OK for a site that is
entitled to the benefit of the Needed Housing Statute to not be developable at all under
clear and objective standards. The statute is plain; if the applicanproceed to some
PUD approval under clear and objective standards then the statute prohibits applying any
discretionary standards.
Mr. Malone endorses the opinion of the City Attorney and then adds a gloss. He understands
that a situation may arise where no PUD is approvable under clear and objective standards.
According to Mr. Malone, the statute only requires the opportunity to apply under clear and
objective standards; it does not guarantee that something must be approvable under clear and
objective standards.
Mr. Malone does not address explicitly the language in the statute that the applicant relies upon
to take discretionary standards off the table. That is the language in ORS 197.307(6):
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 10
(6) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and
objective standards, conditions and procedures as provided in subsection (4) of
this section, a local government may adopt and apply an alternative approval
process for applications and permits for residential development based on
approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, appearance or aesthetics that are
not clear and objective if:
(a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval
process that meets the requirements of subsection (4) of this section;
The applicant has invoked its right to clear and objective standards. The applicant has shown
that no PUD can be approved on this site under the Needed Housing track standards in EC
9.8325. Neither the city staff nor the opponents has shown that some PUD can be approved on
this site under EC 9.8325. As a result, the statute prohibits the City from applying any
discretionary standards. The applicant applied under the General Track; the statute prohibits the
City from applying any discretionary standards in the General Track. After the discretionary
standards in EC 9.8320 are removed from the table by operation of ORS 197.307(6), the City
simply needs to apply the remaining standards in EC 9.8320 General Standards track that are
clear and objective.
Mr. Malone has failed to offer an explanation of how ORS 197.307(6)(a) operates in this
situation, as have the City Attorney and City staff.
Dropping back to a higher elevation on this, the applicant appreciates there is no reported case
applying the Needed Housing Statute exactly as the applicant requests here. Using a mountain
bike metaphor here, Eugene is the only -City that we are aware of one that has
discrete tracks for PUDs with discretionary versus clear and objective standards. Our March 5
Hearing Memorandum discusses a few of the cases in which LUBA has prohibited -
ards when an applicant invokes the statute. See
the recent Group B decision in Corvallis. Furthermore, there are situations in Eugene where
LUBA has pruned the Needed Housing track to eliminate standards that are not actually clear
and objective. See the recent Walter decision. All those cases just apply the plain language of
the statute; that is what the applicant requests here.
To editorialize just a smidge, this dilemma for the City is of its own making. When the City
adopted the Multi-Track model in 2001, it failed to adequately test ride the Needed Housing
track standards to ensure that any landowner with South Hills property who invoked her statutory
rights would actually be able to get some kind of a PUD approval. The City adopted Needed
Housing standards that are simply too stringent to allow development on each site in the City that
requires a PUD approval. As LUBA pointed out in the Home Builders challenge to the 2001
code update, sometimes compliance with the statute needs to be tested in the context of a site-
specific application rather than in a facial challenge to the ordinance. See Home Builders Assn.
of Lane County v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 423 (2002). This is one of those situations.
The zoning regulations that apply here show that the applicant does not have an avenue in the
code to get a PUD approval on this site under clear and objective standards. Hence, the statute
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 11
requires the Hearing Official to conclude that the City may not apply any discretionary standards
even to an application filed under EC 9.8320. As the Court of Appeals explained in the
Recovery House VI matter, this is true even in the context of an application under standards that
the applicant asserts the City may not apply.
OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS -- SOUTH HILLS STUDY APPLICABILITY
The Staff Report at pages 5-
(1974) refinement plan does not contain standards that apply to this application. We responded
to the Staff Report in our March 5 Hearing Letter. Staff and the City Attorney provided more
evidence and argument in the first open record period. We respond to that here.
The City has failed to show that the South Hills Study, as a refinement plan of the Metro
Plan, was ever extended to the subject property by a governing body with authority to
adopt plans for the subject property. Hence, the Hearing Official may not apply the South
Hills Study to this application.
Please see our March 5 Hearing Letter at page 9 and following, which documents the chronology
of planning authority for land outside the city limits with reference to the relevant legal
documents.
The City Attorney and both respond to the
has failed to carry its burden to show that the South Hills Study (1974) refinement plan does not
apply the subject property for the reason that the SHS was never extended to this property. (Nor
other land outside the City limits in 1974.) The City needs to show that the plan was applied to
this site by a governing body that had planning authority for the site at the time it acted. That
would have been a decision by Lane County from 1974 to 1987 or a decision by the City of
Eugene after the date in 1987, when the County delegated planning jurisdiction for the UGB area
to the City. -
that did this. It does not happen by osmosis, default, civic
assumptions, many decades of past practice, or a present day wave of a Harry Potter magic
wand. Either the plan was extended by the act of a governing body with authority to plan for the
site at the time of the act, or it was not.
It is
supporting that chronology. That is a good starting point for the He
Response the City Attorney:
refinement plan automatically attaches to properties as they are annexed to the City of
Eugene.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 12
in its March 21 submittal is that the SHS was not adopted with a map, but
was intended to cover land outside the city limits as of 1974; thus, the SHS applies to properties
when they are annexed to the City. City Attorney March 21 memo at 3.
The trouble with this theory is two-fold. First, there is no basis in the SHS supporting this theory
insomuch as there is no language in the SHS that says the plan (which is a body of law) applies
to property at the time the property is annexed. It is just not there. Second, and more
importantly, the Cto the statute that says county plans and codes continue
to apply to land even after the land is annexed to a city and until such time as the city changes
those designations. ORS 215.130(2). The City may only plan and zone land over which it has
statutory authority to do so. The City did not acquire authority to plan and zone land outside the
City until it was delegated that authority by the County in 1987.
Mr. Malone simply agrees with staff it must be the
case that the South Hills Study applies to property when it is annexed.
The memo from the oppo
The assertion is that it simply must be the case that the SHS sticks at the time of annexation.
There is nothing in any statute, comprehensive plan, refinement plan, or City ordinance that
expressly says that or implies it. This site is subject to the Metro Plan, which was extended to
the UGB with the acknowledgment of the first Metro Plan in 1982; it is not subject to the SHS.
In their search for a Post-Acknowledgment Plan Amendment that applies the SHS to this
property, the parties should be looking for a city or county enactment that applied the SHS to the
urban growth boundary. That would be a county enactment between 1980 and 1987 (when we
had a UGB and the county was in charge of it), or a city enactment after the city got planning
authority for the UGB in 1987. As best as the applicant can determine, that never happened.
The City has the burden to prove that it did happen to show that the SHS is a standard that may
be applied under ORS 227.173. The City has not done that.
EVALUATION OF SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS
EC 9.8320(1) The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan.
Staff Report page 6.
The applicant concurs that with the conclusion in the Staff none of the relevant
Metro Plan policies appear to directly apply as mandatory approval criteria for the PUD.
also see our discussion of Metro Plan policies in our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards. The
policies either do not contain mandatory language; they are implemented through the code; or
they are directive to the city, not to applicants.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 13
Opponents also referenced two other Metro Plan policies in addition to those addressed by the
staff and the applicant -- Policies E.2 and J.8.
Environmental Design Policy E.2 says:
Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainage-ways shall be protected
and retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be utilized to
enhance those natural features. This policy does not preclude increasing their
conveyance capacity in an environmentally responsible manner.
Energy Policy J.8 says:
Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated to the
greatest extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel
distances, optimize reuse of waste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy
generation.
Neither of these policies is clear and objective; furthermore, each is implemented through more
detailed code language.
EC 9.8320(2) The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plan policies.
Staff Report at 7.
South Hills Study (1974)
1. The SHS is not a source of standards for this property because the City has not shown that the
plan was ever applied to the property by a governing body having planning authority for the site
OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS -- SOUTH
at the time. See discussion above of
HILLS STUDY APPLICABILITY.
2. The SHS does not contain policies that are clear and objective, and therefore they may not be
OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS -- NEEDED
applied. See discussion above of
HOUSING STATUTE.
For a discussion of specific SHS policies and why they are not clear
and objective, see our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards submitted herewith. Please also see our
summary of the law relating to clear and objective standards in our March 5 Hearing Letter.
3. The SHS also contains policies that are not directly applicable as standards because they are
not stated in mandatory terms, or they are correctly viewed as directives to the City to adopt
policy rather than directed at applications, or they are implemented through the existing code
standards rather than being directly applicable in quasi-judicial contexts. Please see our March 5
Spreadsheet of Standards that addresses each policy.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 14
4. Finally, to the extent that any of the SHS policies do apply, the Staff Report at 8-15 has gotten
it right in its review of each policy and its finding of compliance.
We offer the following additional comments with respect to the specific SHS policies addressed
in the Staff Report:
the policies non-mandatory standards for this
decision.
also written in non-mandatory terms.
more subtle than is
usually recognized. The City has a keen public interest, as stated in the Goal 10
population.
Laurel Hill Plan
1. Our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards identifies three policies that are relevant, but explains
why they may not be applied because they are not clear and objective or they do not state a
mandatory standard.
2. The Staff Report at pages 16-18 addresses the same three Laurel Hill Plan policies and
explains why this proposal complies. The Staff Report also address several additional policies
Transportation Policies 1, 2 and 4, and East Laurel Hill Area Policy 6. None of these appear
directly applicable to this proposal. To the extent that any of the policies addressed in the Staff
3. Opponent Jason Brown quoted Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Policy 1 in support of his complaint
that future dwellings would be visible from the Ribbon Trail. The referenced policy relates to
residential density and discouraging large apartment complexes. These policies do not relate to
views from the Ribbon Trail.
EC 9.8320(3) The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties
including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and height.
1. Our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards
makes this standard less than clear and objective and therefore not applicable.
2. The Staff Report at 18-19 addresses this standard in a competent fashion; we recommend
those findings to the HO.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 15
3. This standard was a focus of opposition.
Opposition points to potential lot coverage stressing the amount of area on individual lots that
could still be developed despite the areas of the site that will be preserved under the site plan.
The HO should rely on the Staff Report analysis, which emphasizes the areas that will provide
screening and preserve trees and vegetation instead of the potentially developable area on each
lot.
Opposition states its concerns about building heights. All residential construction in this project
will meet code standards for the R-1 zone. In this respect, the structures will be similar to the
other nearby structures in the R-1 zone. The HO should find that structures in a neighborhood
that are all subject to the same height limitations will be compatible with each other in terms of
height. Any screening to be preserved on the site will enhance compatibility.
Opposition states its concern about the efficacy of unstated future CC&Rs to contribute to
screening. The HO should base her findings about the adequacy of screening on the proposed
binding aspects of the site plan under consideration, the applicable residential development
standards, and recommended conditions not the potential contribution of future, unarticulated
CC&Rs.
Opposition generally critiques the screening proposal, stating that it is not enough: the houses
could be huge, too many trees will be cut, and future trails in the park to the north may expose
future park users to a view of the houses. The applicant understands that when neighbors oppose
the potential for new neighbors, the mitigation proposals will never be enough. The applicant
not
To what extent should existing single family neighbors be entitled to screening from
more single family neighbors, when the ultimate policy choice in the plan and the code is to
develop vacant residential land at planned densities? Existing neighbors are not entitled to be
completely screened from future neighbors living in houses just like theirs. The standard is
. The HO should find, based on the record, that the proposed screening will be
adequate, as recommended by staff.
EC 9.8320(4) The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural
environment by addressing the following:
(a) Protection of Natural Features.
* * * *
2.
a. but not
limited to anticipated building locations, bulk and height, location and distribution
of recreation space, parking, roads, access and other uses, will:
(1) Avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of attractive natural
features and vegetation, and
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 16
(2) Avoid conversion of natural resource areas designated in the
Metropolitan Area General Plan to urban uses when alternative locations on
the property are suitable for development as otherwise permitted.
b. Proposed buildings, road, and other uses are designed and sited to assure
preservation of significant on-site vegetation, topographic features, and other
unique and worthwhile natural features, and to prevent soil erosion or flood hazard.
1. Our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards and Hearing Letter explains why the elements of this
standard are not clear and objective and therefore make it inapplicable.
2. The Staff Report at 20 addresses this standard in a competent fashion; we recommend those
findings to the HO.
3. This standard was a focus of opposition.
The opposition assumes, without any evidence related to this site, that there are rare, sensitive
and vulnerable animal species on this site that would be impacted by this development. There is
no expert evidence to support this; it is a working assumption by opposition.
animals. That term is not defined in the code, as noted in our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards.
That assumption is not consist
(b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and sited to preserve
significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, with trees having the following
characteristics given the highest priority for preservation:
1. Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base
zone or special area zone designation and other applicable approval criteria;
2. Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual
isolated trees subject to windthrow;
3. Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or shade
expansive areas of pavement;
4. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses;
5. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback
areas;
6. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors;
7. Trees with significant habitat value;
8. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets;
9. Trees located along a water feature;
10. Heritage trees.
1. Our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards and Hearing Letter explains why the elements of this
standard are not clear and objective and therefore make it inapplicable. The standard calls for a
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 17
subjective judgment when evaluating tree removal in conjunction with the density allowed by the
code. In addition, many terms in the list of 10 priorities are undefined and ambiguous.
2. The Staff Report at 21-22 addresses this standard in a competent fashion; we recommend
those findings to the HO, including the conditions of approval recommended by the staff.
3. Compliance with this standard was a major target for opposition. Opposition critiqued many
aspects of the tree preservation evidence and proposal, including with a report by a forester
certified in California.
In response to the opposition testimony, the applicant submitted a report by Kyle King, licensed
Oregon arborist, in the March 21 open record period. See Hearing Exhibit K submitted with
Schirmer Satre Letter dated March 21.
The Schirmer Satre letter explains that the opposition report from California forester Mehrwein
needs to be weighed with a grain of salt. He is not a certified Oregon arborist, and the Eugene
code does not recognize an out-of-state professional forester as an acceptable design professional
for a tentative PUD process. Schirmer Satre Lttr at 2.
The makes several points in response to the broad
pattern attack by opponents. See Hearing Exhibit K.
His assessment is based on a site visit, in contrast to the report of Mr. Mehrwein.
The deciduous trees located in the buildable areas are in no better condition than are
those in the thicker forested areas. Their removal will not create a significant loss to the
tree canopy or general health of the environment.
The tree canopy health will improve with the planting of new, healthy and more
appropriate trees.
He explains why removal of trees from some areas and leaving trees in groupings in other
areas is not likely to create a windthrow problem in the future.
He explains why the proposal to leave a large area of trees adjacent to the Ribbon Trail
on the steepest slopes on the site is the most responsible way to approach tree protection
on this site, including for preserving habitat value.
Finally, as evidence that the tree canopy on this site will fare well under the development
proposal and provide good screening and fit with the neighborhood, he explained that the
canopy in the surrounding neighborhood has this quality, and it was developed in much
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 18
the same manner as the proposal here. The best evidence that this will work out is in the
Tree preservation standards are a perennial hotspot in all reviews of PUDs in the South Hills.
The standards above are inherently subjective and call for the most basic value judgments. There
approach has been to preserve trees in large groupings and to require replanting of trees that may
be removed at a 2:1 ratio. The approach to tree preservation is the combined effort of Oregon
licensed professionals a landscape architect and an arborist. The staff has given the proposal a
good shaking out, and the applicant has incorporated staff recommendations along the way; thus,
we have a positive staff recommendation. The HO should approve this approach as well with the
conditions recommended by staff.
EC 9.8320(4) The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural
environment by addressing the following:
* * * *
(c) Restoration or Replacement.
* * * *
2.
significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above shall be consistent with
the acknowledged level of protection for the features.
and objective standard if a definition must be found for it.
2. We recommend the finding of compliance as stated in the Staff Report at 24.
EC 9.8320(4) The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural
environment by addressing the following:
* * * *
(d)Street Trees. If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of those
street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according to the process
at EC 6.305.
The Staff Report at 25 recommends a finding of compliance with a condition. The applicant
supports that approach.
EC 9.8320(5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through
compliance with the following:
There are three parts to this standard (a), (b), and (c). They are addressed separately in the staff
report, so we take that approach here.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 19
Initially, all three parts of this standard are prefaced by the phrase
of the standards in the subparts, then the standard as a whole is not clear and objective and may
not be applied. If, in contrast, the standard is correctly read as being implemented only through
the more particular standards listed in (a), (b) and (c), then the focus should be on the
substandards in nd
as a whole is not clear enough to be applied.
The applicant believes that the standard as a whole is sufficiently ambiguous that it should not be
applied at all.
Looking to the individual subparts of this standard:
EC 9.8320(5)(a): EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and
Other Public Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (10) below).
1. The Staff Report, at pages 25 through 30, slogs through about 14 different standards for
streets, alleys and other public ways, based on the comments incorporated by Public Works, and
it finds compliance without the need for any further right of way dedication or special setback
standards. The HO should endorse the findings of compliance in the Staff Report.
The Staff relies heavily on the December 8 Memorandum from City Engineer Scott Gillespie,
PE, which is Attachment F to the Staff Report. That memo reviews the development proposal
for compliance with city road standards, in particular the adequacy of Capital Drive and Spring
Blvd.
Gillespie memo concluded:
existing roadway system is safe and adequate to serve. I have also reviewed the
roadway system and conclude there is no evidence to suggest the existing
roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site. Therefore, City
transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development and no
offsite mitigation is required.
2. Opponents take issue with the Staff Report and City Engineer supporting analysis. The thrust
r
The applicant believes that opponents misunderstand the nature of the standard. It
code standards that are referenced in EC 9.8320(5)(a). That is the analysis conducted by the
applicant and the City Engineer and summarized in the Staff Report. The development proposal
it will
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 20
comply with the standards incorporated into EC 9.8320(5)(a). That conclusion is supported by
the Staff Report and should be affirmed by the HO.
(5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance
with the following:
* * * *
(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as
needed among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to
adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers,
office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate
that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles
that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists.
1. The Staff Report at 29 and 30 explain why the application complies with this standard. The
HO should endorse the findings in the Staff Report.
2. Opponents question whether enough facilities are being provided for pedestrians and cyclists.
argument. Here the HO should endorse the Staff Report finings.
(5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance
with the following:
* * *
(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through
9.8680 where applicable.
1. The HO has previously determined that the TIA provisions of the code do not apply when the
applicant invokes the Needed Housing Statute because the trigger and the standards for a TIA in
the code are not clear and objective. See our March 5 Hearing Letter at 2 and supporting
Hearing Exhibit A. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
2. The Staff Report at 30 concludes that the triggers in the code for a TIA are not met and
explains why. The HO should adopt the findings of the staff on this issue.
3. Opponents take great issue with the city conclusion that no TIA is needed. They also stress
that the TIA This is
We refer the HO to the March 21 Technical Memorandum from Damien Gilbert P.E., which is
Hearing Exhibit B attached to the Schirmer Satre letter of March 21. He addresses the criticisms
of the
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 21
Mr. Saberian is a full-time supervising engineer for the City of Santa Rosa, California.
He does not state that he ever visited the site.
Mr. Saberian did not submit any calculations to demonstrate that the TIA standards are
not met.
meet
the city roadway width standards.
it is an effective method, as the City Engineer notes, to calm traffic. Some new streets in
the South Hills have purposely been constructed this way as a way to implement traffic
calming policy.
Neighbor concerns about speeding and illegal parking raise city enforcement issues, not
grounds for denying new development.
The Gilbert response concludes with responses to specific criticism in Saberian report.
The neighborhood response committee submitted evidence at the second open record period.
This evidence should not be considered because it responds to hearing evidence, not evidence in
the first open record period.
In summary, the HO should endorse the conclusion in the staff report, as supported by the expert
EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including
but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment
to emergency response.
1. As explained in our March 5 Standards Spreadsheet and Hearing Letter, the operative phase
Needed Housing Statute.
2. The Staff Report at 32-34 examines the application under each of the five elements of this
standard, finds compliance, and recommends approval. The Staff Report recommends a
condition requiring further geotechnical analysis in conjunction with any development. The
applicant concurs with that recommendation. The HO should endorse the Staff Report findings
and condition.
3. Opponentslieder, Ph.D., CEG, provided a half-hour Powerpoint
lecture at the hearing and a
made two post-
Derrick P.E., G.E., Principal Geotechnical Engineer at Branch Engineering, and Gary Sandstrom
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 22
C.E.G., Certified Engineering Geologist. Their original report was supplemented by post-
hearing submittals responding to the Schlieder report and his post-hearing submittals.
It is important to keep in mind that the Branch Engineering report was an initial report on the site
done for site planning purposes. The ultimate conclusion of the report, stated in the Executive
Our findings are that the proposed development is feasible from a
geologic and geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations within this report are
incorporated into the design and construction of the project.And the report concluded at page
In our opinion there are no significant geologic hazards that would impede or otherwise
restrict the planned development as proposed. The proposed development will not adversely
impact the proposed site or adjacent properties.
The Schlieder lecture and report picked at details in the Branch Engineering Study. His report
target the ultimate conclusion of the Branch Engineering
Report that the development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, that there are no
significant geologic hazards that would impede the proposed development, and that further
geotechnical study is appropriate at each stage of the physical development process.
The post-hearing submittals of Branch Engineering and Schlieder get into a back and forth on
geotechnical issues. See especially the Branch Engineering March 20 response to the Schlieder
hearing presentation/report, which appears at Hearing Exhibit J to the Schirmer Satre March 21
letter.
Th
questions at this stage of the review process, is stated at Staff Report 45:
rrick,
P.E., G.E. of Branch Engineering, Inc., which is dated February 6, 2017, meets the Level
One and Level Two Analysis requirements of EC 9.6710(4)(a) and (4)(b), which consists
of a compilation of record geological data, site conditions, sub-surface investigation and
testing and a report discussing site and soil characteristics in relation to the proposed
development and other applicable standards. The report concludes that the site is
geologically and geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. The report also
includes a number of construction recommendations including the design and
construction of the proposed residential building pads and foundations and public
infrastructure improvements. Public Works staff concurs with this initial geotechnical
assessment. Adherence to the report recommendations will be required during the
subsequent PEPI permit, and building and site development processes, based on the
condition of approval recommended previously under EC 9.8320(6).
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 23
In summary, the as
if the development proceeds as proposed to be conditioned. Mr. Schlieder has not demonstrated
otherwise.
EC 9.8320(7) Adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, or if public
services and facilities are not presently available, the applicant demonstrates that the
services and facilities will be available prior to need. Demonstration of future availability
requires evidence of at least one of the following:
(a)Prior written commitment of public funds by the appropriate public
agencies.
(b)Prior acceptance by the appropriate public agency of a written
commitment by the applicant or other party to provide private services
and facilities.
(c)A written commitment by the applicant or other party to provide for
offsetting all added public costs or early commitment of public funds
made necessary by development, submitted on a form acceptable to the
city manager.
1. As explained in our March 5 Standards Spreadsheet, the touchstone standard here,
Needed Housing Statute.
2. The Staff Report at 34-finds that adequate public facilities and services are either
presently available, or can be available, and can be extended to serve the proposed development,
standard.
should reach the same conclusion, too.
The two most contentious substantive issues here are adequacy of the water supply and roads.
This part of the Staff Report reviews the transportation analysis in summary fashion, with
reference to the detailed December 8 analysis of the
study. It reaffirms the conclusion that transportation facilities are adequate for this project.
The Staff Report also finds compliance with adequacy standard for water supply. The staff
analysis, summarizing referral comments from EWEB, explain that water is available but that a
new pump station is needed in the adjacent Hendricks Park to serve this site. The applicant
concurs with the recommended condition of approval requiring a financial guarantee in
conjunction with final platting.
Looking more closely at the standards for proving up on public facilities for water in EC
9.8320(7), the applicant looked at three options stated in the standard. Option (
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 24
commitment to is not a tenable option when the plan
ght to comply with option (c), providing a
costs or early commitment of public funds made necessary by development, submitted on a form
acceptable to the city ma
that would be used by the City
Manager as a public record; the city responded that it did not have such a form. See the public
record request and response, which is Exhibit Q to the Schirmer Satre Letter of March 21 -- the
first open record period. The applicant then approached EWEB and made a financial
commitment to pay its proportionate share of the capital costs of off-site improvements needed to
supply adequate water to the site. That commitment, signed by the owners, is Exhibit R to the
Schirmer Satre Letter of March 21. The operative language in that commitment is:
1. The language of Condition 12 proposed by the City is acceptable to the
Owners and Owners commit to providing financial guarantee ensuring water
service to each lot of the approved PUD in a form acceptable to EWEB.
2. The Owners hereby commit to pay their proportionate share of
-site improvements needed to provide adequate water
service to the proposed development.
3. The Owners commit to make that payment required by #2 for off-site
improvements when requested by EWEB.
4. The Owners agree that EWEB may, if necessary, include the amount of
the payment due under 2. above in the bond or other financial guarantee that is
anticipated in Condition 12 above and is also required by ORS 92.090(4)(b) in
conjunction with final platting.
The applicant also solicited from EWEB an affirmative concurrence
Engineering Supervisor, is Exhibit S to the Schirmer Satre Letter of March 21.
The applicant believes it has strictly complied with the showing of adequacy of the water supply
required by EC 9.8320(7)(c). The applicant could not make the commitment of funds on a form
ovide one. The applicant
then went to another branch of the City -- the city arm that actually provides water infrastructure
and supply -- and made the commitment in a form acceptable to it.
In the second open record period the opposition took issue with the form of commitment used
with EWEB. See March 30 email from Susan Hoffman. Hoffman points out that the owner
commitment does not cover the whole site because it does not list Tax Lot 201. This is seizing
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 25
on a typo. The scope of the commitment is for the pro Term 2 of the
capital costs for off-site improvements needed to provide adequate water service to the proposed
development.the field; and the field includes all tax lots.
Hoffman also takes issue with the contents of the Owner Commitment, questioning what it does
contain, what it does not contain, the scope of EWEB authority, and so on. The key point is that
the code requests that the commitment be in a form acceptable to the city. The City Manager did
not have a form. EWEB found the form acceptable. That should tighten up the pipes and end the
inquiry.
In summary, the HO should find that, with the condition recommended by staff, and subject to
facilities will be adequate.
EC 9.8320(8) Residents of the PUD will have sufficient usable recreation area and open
space that is convenient and safely accessible.
1. As noted in our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards, "sufficient," "convenient," and "safely"
are all terms that trigger discretion and subjective judgment. They should not be applied.
2. The Staff Report at 36 notes there is ample recreation area, and the HO should concur with
the Staff Report.
EC 9.8320(9): Lots proposed for development with one-family detached dwellings shall
comply with EC 9.2790 Solar Lot Standards or as modified according to subsection (10)
below.
The Staff Report at 36-37 demonstrates compliance with the solar standards. The HO should
endorse the findings of the staff.
EC 9.8320(10): The PUD complies with all of the following (An approved adjustment to a
standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land use code
constitutes compliance with the standard.)
This standard incorporates a long list of prescriptive code sections about how development is to
be done on the property. These standards were the template for the project design and the
original application. The Staff Report explains at 37-53 how this proposal complies with the
standards or can comply with conditions.
The applicant recommends the Staff Report analysis to the HO as appropriate findings.
Eugene Hearing Official
April 6, 2018
Page 26
The applicant concurs in all the recommended conditions.
The applicant also concurs with the Staff Report conclusion, stated at page 44, that this
development proposal is exempt from Geological and Geotechnical Analysis requirements of EC
9.6710 for the reason that the site as a whole is on the acknowledged Goal 5 inventory.
EC 9.8320(11): The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including
such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental quality.
1. The operative standa
this standard should not be applied under the Needed Housing Statute.
2. The Staff Report at 55-56 provides a competent summary of the evidence in the record that
supports a finding -
concur with the staff and incorporate those findings.
EC 9.8320(12): The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and
harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses.
1.
value judgment, which is beyond the scope of the Needed Housing Statute allows.
2. The Staff Report at 57-
finding by the HO. We recommend that analysis.
Conclusion
As is evident from the scale and intensity of the opposition, this neighborhood does not want this
infill project at this site, even though the City has determined that this site is intended for just this
kind of use at about this proposed density. Perhaps the best recommendation we have for
approval is the positive and detailed review by the city staff. We hope the HO concurs with the
applicant and the city staff and approves the use as proposed to be conditioned.
Sincerely,
Bill Kloos
Bill Kloos
Client
Schirmer Satre Group