"Any approval standards, special conditions and the procedures for approval <br />adopted by a local government shall be clear and objective and may not have the <br />effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing <br />through unreasonable cost or delay." <br />The import of ORS 197.307(6) is that the City may not apply standards or conditions that are not <br />clear and objective. Code provisions that flunk the test to be applied include that call for <br />subjective value judgments, of course. Code provisions that are so ambiguous that they can be <br />interpreted to either approve or deny the use also flunk the test and may not be applied. See, <br />e.g., Group B, LLC v. City of Corvallis, _ Or LUBA _ (2015), aff'd without opinion 275 Or <br />App 577, 366 P3d 847 (2015), rev den (No. 5063840, May 26, 2016)(ambiguous condition on <br />1981 approval could not be applied); Walter v. City of Eugene, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. <br />2016-024, June 30, 2016)(ambiguous standard may not be applied). <br />In summary, the Needed Housing Statutes applies as follows: <br />1. It applies directly to decisions regulating development of Needed Housing on <br />land on the BLI. <br />2. Under the default provision of ORS 197.307(6)(2001) [now ORS 197.307(4)], <br />the City may only apply clear and objective standards, conditions and processes. <br />3. Those standards and conditions "may not have the effect, either in themselves <br />or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay." <br />ORS 197.307(6)(2001) [now ORS 197.307(4)]. <br />4. The City may have an alternative track regulating "appearance and aesthetics" <br />that it applies to applicants. ORS 197.307(4) [now ORS 197.307(6)]. <br />5. The City may only apply the alternative track discretionary standards for <br />appearance and aesthetics if the applicant retains the option to proceed under clear and <br />objective standards. ORS 197.307(6)(a). <br />In considering this application, the Hearing Official should be on the lookout for situations <br />where the dispute between the applicant and the City relates to a discretionary call about <br />subjective or ambiguous standards. These standards may not be the basis for denial. He should <br />also reject any proposed conditions that will call for the exercise of discretion in the future in <br />implementing this approval. And, finally, he should reject any conditions that will require <br />expensive work to be done in the future that will not generate information that is a substantial <br />benefit to the project - that is, the cost or delay associated is unreasonable for the benefit to be <br />gained. <br />Goalpost Statute: As is apparent from the record, and as explained at the hearing, the Applicant <br />filed when it did in 2002 to get the benefit of the standards in effect at the time of the filing. In <br />the City Attorney memo dated June 29, the City took the position that the "Goalpost Statute" <br />does not really set the goal posts. It leaves the door open for the City to adopt new or amended <br />regulations after the date of the filing and then apply those standards to the project that is <br />actually developed under this approval. <br />APPLICANT'S FINAL ARGUMENT - Page 2 <br />Cathedral Park (CU 02-4) Record July 2016 <br />