during and after the hearing Mr. Conte establishes that he disagrees with city staff's position as it <br />relates to the Public Works Referral comments. While conflicting evidence and testimony is <br />relevant to the weight afforded to that evidence and testimony, that a party disagrees with <br />evidence, or the city's evaluation of evidence, is not a basis under ORS 197.763 to reject or <br />ignore statements submitted into the record.4 <br />Mr. Conte's motion to reject or ignore a sentence included in the Staff's March 30, 2018 <br />memorandum is denied. <br />E. Evaluation of Request <br />1. Challenges to Applicable Approval Criteria <br />a. Applicability of only clear and objective approval criteria <br />As explained in the Staff Report, the applicant filed the requested PUD application under the <br />city's "general" PUD process, which requires compliance with the criteria established in EC <br />9.8320. By their terms, these criteria are discretionary; they are not and do not purport to be <br />`clear and objective'. Consistent with that choice, the applicant's narrative addresses the general <br />approval criteria. Notwithstanding that choice, the applicant "invokes * * * a right to an approval <br />path under only clear and objective standards, as guaranteed by ORS 197.307(6)." The applicant <br />argues that "[b]ecause this site cannot be developed under the "Needed Housing" track in the <br />code, under ORS 197.307 the City is prohibited from applying any standards under the "General <br />Track" that are not clear and objective." <br />ORS 197.307 (as amended August 15, 2017) states, in relevant part: <br />"(4) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a local government may adopt <br />and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the <br />developing of housing, including needed housing. The standards, conditions and <br />procedures: <br />(a) May include, but are not limited to, one or more provisions regulating the <br />density or height of a development. <br />(b) May not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging <br />needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. <br /> <br />"(6) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective <br />standards, conditions and procedures as provided in subsection (4) of this section, a local <br />government may adopt and apply an alternative approval process for applications and <br />4 It is possible that Mr. Conte's motion could be construed to argue that the challenged sentence is actually new <br />evidence submitted after the March 21, 2018 deadline for new evidence. The hearing official does not consider that <br />sentence to include new evidence. At most, it appears to be staffs attempt to respond to Mr. Conte's concerns <br />regarding which version(s) of the Public Works referral comments staff relied on; it does not add any factual <br />evidence to the record. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 9 <br />