OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS NEEDED HOUSING STATUTE <br />The Staff Report at pages 4-5 discusses the applicant's invocation of the Needed Housing Statute <br />in the original 2017 application materials. We responded to the Staff Report in our March 5 <br />Hearing Letter. Staff and the City Attorney provided more evidence and argument in the first <br />open record period. We respond to that here. <br />Please see our Hearing Letter dated March 5 for our basic pitch on how the state law and city <br />code apply to the facts of this site. <br />Our March 5 hearing letter summarizes the law as follows: The Needed Housing Statute applies <br />directly to the City's review of this application. That statute establishes certain rights for any <br />applicant proposing to develop housing. An applicant is entitled to review under only clear and <br />objective standards. ORS 197.307(4). That right has been in place since 1981. A city may apply <br />an alternative review track with standards that are not clear and objective only if "the applicant <br />retains the option of proceeding under the approval process" with clear and objective standards. <br />ORS 197.307(6). That option has been in place only since 1997. These basic rules reflect the <br />plain language of the statute, and they are not contested by the City or any party. <br />This applicant explained from the start that it is invoking its statutory right to review under clear <br />and objective standards. The applicant explained that it needs a PUD approval to develop this <br />site, but no PUD approval is possible under the Needed Housing track in the code (EC 9.8325). <br />The applicant has fully explained how the standards in the code's Needed Housing track <br />preclude any development approval when applied to this site. See March 3, 2017, application <br />letter; March 5, 2018, hearing letter at page 4; and March 5, 2018, supporting Spreadsheet of <br />Standards. Considering no PUD can be approved on this site under the Needed Housing <br />standards in EC 9.8325, the applicant necessarily applied under the General Track in the code <br />that contains discretionary standards (EC 9.8320). The applicant explained in its hearing letter <br />that in the context of applying under the General Track, as the Court of Appeals has instructed in <br />its Recovery House VI decision, the applicant is entitled to a determination from the Hearing <br />Official whether discretionary standards may be applied at all. Put differently, the applicant has <br />shown that the General Track is the only route through the code to get a PUD approval for any <br />kind of development on this site. It applied under that route. Since there is not a route available <br />with only clear and objective standards, the City is prohibited from applying any discretionary <br />standards in this application. <br />Finally, in conjunction with its March 5 hearing letter, the applicant provided a Spreadsheet of <br />Standards and explained whether each standard is sufficiently clear and objective that it may be <br />applied. Furthermore, pages 6-8 of the hearing letter include a summary of the law addressing <br />which kinds of standards are clear and objective and which are not. <br />The applicant's legal theory is pretty simple. It invokes the plain language of ORS 197.307(6). <br />The applicant needs a PUD approval for this development site. The Needed Housing standards in <br />APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018 <br />