Fred Wilson <br />July 16, 2018 <br />Page 5 <br />Conclusion <br /> The applicant has submitted a Willamette Greenway Permit application and staff is <br />2 <br />recommending approval of the application on its merits. However, regardless of the Hearings <br />Official’s determination on the merits of the application, the Hearings Official cannot, as applicant <br />urges, rely on ORS 197.307(4) to ignore or refuse to apply the approval criteria of EC 9.8815. EC <br />9.8815 is necessary for compliance with ORS 390.314, Goal 15, and the Metro Plan. ORS <br />174.020(2), as well as the various statutes requiring compliance with the statewide land use <br />planning goals noted in this memo, support the conclusion that the City’s obligations to comply <br />with the requirements of Goal 15 within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway must <br />take precedence over a housing developer’s right to clear and objective standards within the <br />Greenway. The criteria in EC 9.8815 are applicable to this application. <br />2 <br /> To the extent that the Home Builders are arguing that the Court of Appeals decision in Recovery <br />House VI v. City of Eugene, 150 Or App 382, 946 P2d 342 (1997) prohibits the City from <br />considering the Willamette Greenway application on the merits, that argument misstates the <br />court’s holding. As LUBA has recognized, the decision in Recovery House simply provides that <br />where an applicant files a permit application under protest, the applicant preserves the right to <br />challenge, at LUBA, the local government’s decision that a permit application was required. The <br />Recovery House decision does not prevent a local government from considering the merits of an <br />application filed under protest. GPA1, LLC v. City of Corvallis, ___ Or LUBA ___, (LUBA No <br />2016-013, June 15, 2016) (slip op at 3). <br />{00285705;2 } <br />