Eugene Hearing Official <br />November 23, 2015 <br />Page 7 <br />The operation of the statute is simple. If a particular standard is not clear and objective, the city <br />may not apply it in making the decision. See Parkview Terrace Dev't Inc. v. City of Grants Pass, <br />Or LUBA (No. 2014-024, July 23, 2014) (reversing city denial of apartments because <br />seven standards were discretionary, thus "outside the range of discretion allowed the local <br />government under its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances[.]"); Rudell v. City of <br />Bandon, 62 Or LUBA 279 (LUBA No. 2010-037, November 29, 2010)(city could not apply <br />several standards for a conditional use permit for a single dwelling because they were not clear <br />and objective). <br />Generally, standards are clear and objective in the meaning of ORS 197.307(6) if the local <br />government demonstrates that they do not impose "subjective, value-laden analyses that are <br />designed to balance or mitigate impacts." Rogue Valley Assoc. of Realtors v. City ofAshland, 35 <br />Or LUBA 139, 158 (1998), aff'd 158 Or App 1, 970 P2d 685, rev den 328 Or 594 P2d (1999). <br />To summarize: <br />1. The Needed Housing Statute applies directly to decisions regulating <br />development of Needed Housing. <br />2. Under the default provision of subsection (4), the City may only apply <br />clear and objective standards, conditions and processes. Standards requiring <br />interpretation to approve or deny are not clear and objective. <br />3. Those standards and conditions "may not have the effect, either in <br />themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through <br />unreasonable cost or delay." <br />4. The City may have an alternative track regulating "appearance and <br />aesthetics" that it applies to applicants. <br />5. The City may only apply the alternative track discretionary standards <br />for appearance and aesthetics if the applicant retains the option to proceed under <br />clear and objective standards. <br />LUBA reviewed the newly adopted Eugene Code in 2001 (amended version being applied here) <br />in an appeal brought by the Home Builders. That was a facial challenge to the newly adopted <br />code. Home Builders Assoc. of Lane County v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370 (2002). <br />LUBA's review found three types of errors alleged by the Home Builders. LUBA prefaced its <br />review: <br />ORS 197.307(3)(d) allows a local government to adopt an alternative approval <br />process for residential applications and permits based on criteria that are not clear <br />and objective, as long as the applicant has the option of proceeding instead under <br />clear and objective criteria. See n 5; see also Callison v. LCDC, 145 Or App 277, <br />284 n 8, 929 P2d 1061 (1996) (clear and objective criteria are not rendered <br />otherwise simply because local governments provide an optional, alternative set <br />of approval standards that are not clear and objective). As the city explains, the <br />