Third, the applicant relies on Homebuilders, see March 5, 2018, letter, Page 8, but that <br />case is not on point. Just because a particular proposal on a unique property cannot satisfy a <br /> The standard in Homebuilders that <br />prohibited a PUD from creating negative impacts on natural drainage courses. <br />Homebuilders, slip op at 48. Because rain falls on all developments and all rain transports some <br />pollutants, the standard would be violated in all instances. See id. <br />falls on all development, and all water moving across ground carries some sediment, creates <br />some turbidity, and has some erosional component, no matter how minute, and therefore no PUD <br /> The problem in Homebuilders was not <br />inherent in the particular property or proposal at issue but rather that the standard could not be <br />satisfied on any property. Therefore, the problem in Homebuilders is not present here. <br />Fourth, <br />thi <br />2018, letter, page 4. There is no such requirement placed on the Hearings Official by statute or <br />code, and it is not the duty of the Hearings Official to design t <br />countless land use tools available to the applicant to remedy the situation. It is not necessary for <br />the Hearings Official to make such a determination because the underlying principle is incorrect <br />there is simply nothing in the needed housing statute that requires any proposal on a particular <br />unit of land be approvable under clear and objective criteria. If the applicant cannot satisfy the <br />clear and objective criteria, then that is the applicants failure. <br /> that because the applicant applied under the <br />General or discretionary track, the application must be assessed under the discretionary criteria. <br />with the clear and objective standards or satisfy the discretionary standards. <br />II. The South Hills Study area applies to the subject application <br />The applicant makes a strained argument that the South Hills Study does not apply to the <br />subject property. As with the above argument, the applicant has missed the mark. The initial <br />th <br />resolution adopting the South Hills Study applied south of 18 Avenue above an elevation of 500 <br />feet. The preliminary report understood new land would be brought within the City limits and it <br />accordingly looked to areas within and outside the City limits. The applicant is essentially <br />arguing that when land is annexed into the City, the local government must re-adopt its code or <br />plans to apply to that newly annexed area. Regardless of that inefficient and unworkable <br />argument, the South Hills Study policies are enshrined in the code, the code applies within the <br />City limits, and this property is within the City limits. reasonable <br />cluding Lots 200, 300, and 400) <br />th <br />they became subject to the South Hills Study if they were located south of 18 Avenue and <br />The contrary approach advocated by the <br />applicant is not only unworkable, but there is no support for it in statute or code. <br />2 <br /> <br />