APPLICANT ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT (1 of 2)

Eugene Hearing Official March 5, 2018 Page 3 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; (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules; and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in subsection (4) of this section.” The 2017 amendments clarifiedan ambiguity identified by the LCDC, in the context of a Corvallis enforcement proceedings.Corvallis suggested to the LCDC that the statute only benefits land that is on the acknowledged Buildable Land Inventory (BLI), and itcontended that the subject property there wasnot on the BLI.The LCDC found that thesite wason the BLI; hence it did not have to resolve the ambiguity.The legislature then clarified the ambiguity identified by Corvallisand the LCDC. The amendment, quoted above,makes clearthat this statute now applies to decisions related to housing generally, not just to housing proposed on land that is in the BLI.The statute now applies to all housing proposals. The LCDC’s Corvallis Enforcement Order is attached as Hearing Exhibit B.In that matter the subject property was on the BLI and had a discretionary Planned Development overlay zone. The Commission determined that the owner was nevertheless entitled to clear and objective standards. “\[A\]n applicant for a land use approval for housing under ORS 197.296 and 197.307 may ask for and receive "clear and objective" approval criteria, notwithstanding use ofplanned development discretionary criteria used in approval of other residential developmentprojects in the vicinity, or even by previous property owners of the prope1ty in question.” \[LCDC Order at 15\]. The Commission elaborated on the owner’s right to proceed under clear and objective standards regardless of the presence of a discretionary overlay zone. “\[R\]equestors' propertyis part of the City'srequired inventory of land defined as "buildable" under statute and "needed land'' for fulfillinghousing needs for the 20 year planning period. Further, because the Commission concludes the governing statutes discussed above establish residentially designated lands as developable underclear and objective standards, at the applicant's preference, it does not matter whether or notRequestors' land is under a Planned Development overlay. The applicant may simply request andbe granted authority to proceed with his or her proposal under clear and objective developmentstandards. ORS 197.307(6). Quite simply, what counts in this regard is the fact the property is designated (zoned) for residential development.”