PUBLIC COMMENTS (as of 3-1-18) - Laserfiche WebLink

objective criteria does not allow the applicant to waive or not comply with the subjective criteria under the alternative approval process (i.e., the General Track). The Needed Housing statute does not require that an application for needed housing be approved for every specific property. If the applicant cannot satisfy the clear and objective criteria contained in the City's code, then LUBA has explained that the applicant has three options. In Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Eugene, LUBA explained that an applicant who cannot "avoid denial for failure to meet all clear and objective standards" has three potential options. Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Eugene, _ OR LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2001-059 Feb. 28, 2002). The applicant can (1) "modify the application so that it meets all clear and objective standards." Id. The applicant can (2) apply under a different procedure, if available. Id. (discussing a discretionary adjustment procedure). Finally, the applicant can (3) do nothing and allow the application to be denied. Id. An applicant's failure to satisfy all clear and objective criteria as it relates to a particular application for a unique property is not a basis for finding that the City's criteria runs afoul of ORS 197.307(6)(a). It just means that the application, as submitted, must be modified, applied for under the alternative track, or be denied. If, as is the case here, the applicant seeks approval under the alternative process (here, referred to as the General Track, see EC 9.8320), then the applicant must satisfy the subjective criteria contained therein. The applicant "retains the option of proceeding" under the Needed Housing Track (EC 9.8325). The fact that such an option may lead to a denial is a result of applying the City's clear and objective standards to a particular piece of property. Some property is capable of greater development than others when it comes to EC 9.8325(3) (30-foot landscape buffer), EC 9.8325(5) (prohibition on grading on 20% or greater slopes); and EC 9.8325(12)(a) (prohibition on development over 900-feet). The simple fact that these clear and objective standards result in fewer development opportunities for this particular property does not in and of itself violate the Needed Housing statute. However, if the particular clear and objective standard is one that could not be satisfied in all instances (i.e., on any property), then such a clear and objective standard would violate ORS 197.307(6)(a) because the applicant for a PUD could ever satisfy the standard. Such a situation occurred in Home Builders, slip op at 48. There, a stormwater runoff provision that was clear and objective prohibited a PUD from creating "negative impacts on natural drainage courses." Id. Because rain falls on all developments and all rain transports some pollutants, the standard would be violated in all instances. See id. ("Petitioners submit that rain falls on all development, and all water moving across ground carries some sediment, creates some turbidity, and has some erosional component, no matter how minute, and therefore no PUD could possibly comply with LUCU 9.8325(10)."). LUBA agreed with the petitioners in Home Builders, "at least in the abstract, that imposing a clear and objective standard that is impossible or virtually impossible to meet is a prohibition in the guise of a standard. -2 Even though the City had a discretionary approval track (i.e, the General Track), LUBA found that such an "option is illusory if the clear and objective standards are impossible to satisfy." Here, the circumstances are distinguishable 2 LUBA's conclusion was somewhat complicated by the fact that LUBA determined that "[i]t may not be the case that LUCU 9.8325(10) is impossible to satisfy," but the city did not "respond to [the] assignment of error at all." Slip op at 48.