III. The applicant cannot rely on undefined CCRs to satisfy approval criteria <br /> <br />Generally, an applicant must provide enough evidence for a finding that a particular <br />standard is satisfied or that is feasible to satisfy a standard by imposing conditions necessary to <br />ensure that the standard will be satisfied. Here, as demonstrated in Exhibit D of the Response <br />Committee Submission, the applicant appears to be relying on CCRs as conditions necessary to <br />ensure that standards are satisfied. The applicant must set forth the particular CCRs it proposes <br />if they are intended to satisfy approval criteria as conditions of approval. Without seeing the <br />particular CCRs, it is impossible to determine their feasibility. Because the CCRs have not been <br />provided, the city must provide notice and opportunity for hearing in a subsequent stage to <br />determine whether it is feasible for CCRs to satisfy applicable standards. <br />In Rhyne v. Multnomah County, LUBA No. 92-058, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447-448 (1992), <br />LUBA explained the applicable law when a local government defers findings to another stage: <br />questions concerning whether a particular approval criterion is satisfied, a local <br />government essentially has three options potentially available. First, it may find that <br />although the evidence is conflicting, the evidence nevertheless is sufficient to support a <br />finding that the standard is satisfied or that feasible solutions to identified problems exist, <br />and impose conditions if necessary. Second, if the local government determines there is <br />insufficient evidence to determine the feasibility of compliance with the standard, it could <br />on that basis deny the application. Third, if the local government determines that there is <br />insufficient evidence to determine the feasibility of compliance with the standard, instead <br />of finding the standard is not met, it may defer a determination concerning compliance <br />with the standard to the second stage. In selecting this third option, the local government <br />is not finding all applicable approval standards are complied with, or that it is feasible to <br />do so, as part of the first stage of approval (as it does under the first option described <br />above). Therefore, the local government must assure that the second stage approval <br />process to which the decision making is deferred provides the statutorily required notice <br />and hearing, even though the local code may not require such notice and hearing for <br />second stage decisions in other circumstances. Holland v. Lane County, 16 Or LUBA <br />583, 596-97 (1988). <br /> <br />Id.; Township 13 Homeowners Assoc. v. City of Waldport, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA Nos. 2006- <br />171/172, Jan. 18, 2007), Slip op *7-Rhyne, it was impermissible for the city to <br />completely defer the analysis required by \[the local code\] to a later stage of the approval process <br />Here, the Hearings Official can deny <br />the application because the undefined CCRs do not demonstrate compliance, or the Hearings <br />Official may find that a subsequent stage of approval that includes the statutorily required notice <br />and hearing. <br />IV. Conclusion <br />For the above reasons, the arguments contained in the applicants letter of March 5, 2018, <br />should be rejected. <br />3 <br /> <br />