(A) Through a partition or subdivision procedure, <br />(B) By a deed that was signed before April 2, 1962, or <br />(C) Through approval of an application to validate a unit of land consistent <br />with ORS 92.176." <br />See generally, Schirmer Satre March 30 letter. <br />Based on all of the above, the Table showing legal lot status of all the units of land on this site <br />notes the Staff Partition Tract as a "Possible" legal lot. The Staff Partition Tract has not <br />previously been found to be a legal lot by the City. It is not shown to be a legal lot by the City <br />staff here. The applicant has not vouched that it is a legal lot. The "possible" legal lot status is an <br />interim label the applicant applied to that unit of land in connection with a development strategy <br />that had to be abandoned when the City changed the rules for property line adjustments, as <br />explained in the Schirmer Satre March 30 letter. <br />With that as background, we discuss separately below the legal shortcomings in the staff's <br />position that the potential to divide the 1.48-acre Staff Partition Tract into three parcels is an <br />adequate legal basis to deny the applicant the benefit of a PUD application reviewed under only <br />clear and objective standards. <br />1. Partitioning the 1.48-acre Staff Partition Tract into three parcels under clear and <br />objective partition standards in EC 9.8220 is not the ORS 197.307(6) guaranteed "option of <br />proceeding" to dividing the 13.5 acres under the discretionary PUD track of EC 9.8320. <br />Staff is suggesting partitioning the property into three parcels instead of dividing the property <br />into 34. This is not an apples-to-apples analysis. It is an oranges-to-kumquats analysis. <br />The Hearing Official needs to honor the correct order of analysis under the applicant's legal <br />theory. That starts by standing in the thicket of the discretionary PUD standards of EC 9.8320 <br />and then looking across the fence to the clear and objective PUD standards in EC 9.8325. The <br />application is for a PUD. If the City wants to apply gLny discretionary PUD standards and the <br />applicant has invoked its statutory rights to clear and objective standards, then the staff must <br />show that the site can be developed with a PUD under clear and objective standards; not that <br />some small part of the site could be partitioned under clear and objective standards. The HO <br />should look at the Needed Housing PUD standards and ask whether they would allow approval <br />of any PUD on this site. If the answer is "no," then the statute prohibits the HO from applying <br />any discretionary standards in the General track of EC 9.8320. The HO should not entertain any <br />questions about partition possibilities. <br />Below we examine the partitioning option anyway, and we show why the code prohibits the <br />partition advocated by the staff. <br />APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018 <br />