Response to Staff. The staff suggestion that the applicant can develop two or three lots by <br />a simple partition under clear and objective standards is not a substitute for the applicant's <br />right to a PUD proposal that is approvable under clear and objective standards. <br />Furthermore, no partition is possible under clear and objective standards. <br />Our March 5 hearing letter and our remarks at the hearing took extreme umbrage-with the single <br />sentence in the Staff Report the suggested the applicant could get several lots approved on the <br />development site under clear and objective standards as an alternative to PUD review under <br />discretionary standards. See hearing letter at 5 item (b), which critiques the Staff Report <br />assertion that: <br />"Based on a review of the site plan submitted by the applicant, staff believe that at least <br />two additional units could be developed on the site if the applicant chose to proceed <br />under the needed housing approval criteria." <br />The staff pledged at the hearing to flesh out this conclusory statement. Staff did that in their <br />March 21 memo. We respond to that here. <br />As an initial matter, and in contrast to the City Attorney memo, the March 21 Staff memo <br />correctly states the position of the applicant throughout. The PUD Needed Housing standards <br />contain a limitation on grading 20% slopes at EC 9.8325(5) that precludes an approval of any <br />PUD on this site under the clear and objective standards in that track. The standards collectively <br />are too stringent. Consequently, the guarantee of ORS 197.307(6) allows the applicant to apply <br />under the General Track in EC 9.8320 but does not permit the City to apply the discretionary <br />standards in that track. <br />The Staff s explanation of how two additional units could be developed appears at the bottom of <br />page 2 of the March 21 staff memo. To summarize the staff position: <br />1. The southernmost part of the site is a discrete, vacant legal lot with more than 100 feet <br />of frontage on Capital Drive. <br />2. The southernmost legal lot could be partitioned into two or three additional parcels. <br />3. Because that legal lot is below 900 feet elevation, the partition could be done without a <br />PUD and under the Needed Housing partition standards of EC 9.8220. <br />4. The partition would include one front lot and two flag lots. <br />5. Staff assumes that no street would be required. <br />There are fatal legal shortcomings with this staff position, which we discuss below, following a <br />brief, fuller factual description of the site. <br />APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018 <br />