Applicant's Final Written Argument <br />Lombard Apartments <br />July 23, 2018 <br />supporting non-automobile transportation; o1 t)odunities -for residential <br />development,- and other compatible uses. <br />D.8 WImbin the framework of mandatary statewide planning goals, local <br />Willamette River- Greenway plans shall allow a variety of means for public <br />enjoyment of the river, including public acquisition areas, residential areas, <br />and commercial areas." (Emphasis added). <br />Page 10 of 12 <br />By making the policy choice to allow housing in the Greenway the City has subjected <br />itself to the provisions of ORS 197.307(4). There are other various uses, such as commercial <br />and industrial uses, that are permitted in the Greenway, too, but that are subject to the <br />subjective criteria of EC 9.8815. However, applications for housing located within the <br />Greenway are subject to the commands of ORS 197.307(4). It is simply not true that the City <br />was required to adopt subjective criteria to protect the Willamette Greenway. The City <br />certainly could have chosen to adopt clear and objective standards, such as a specific minimum <br />setback line from the ordinary high-water mark of the River, but it instead chose to establish <br />the setback line on a case-by-case basis. <br />Lastly, in footnote 2 to its 2018 memo, the City Attorney contends that Recoveg House <br />VI v. City of Eugene, 150 Or App 382 (1997) "does not prevent a local government from <br />considering the merits of an application filed under protest." (citing GPA1, LLC P. City of <br />Corvallis, Or LUBA (LUBA No 2016-013, June 15, 2016) (slip op at)). The Home <br />Builders, in its July 9, 2018 letter in the record, page 3, state that "the applicant is entitled to a <br />determination as to whether the application was needed to be filed in the first place." (citing <br />Recovery House VI, supra). The Applicant has requested both - that you determine that the <br />Applicant meets the substantive criteria of the Greenway Permit found at EC 9.8815 and that <br />such determination was not necessary because ORS 197.307(4) prohibits the imposition of <br />standards that are not clear and objective and that discourage needed housing through <br />unreasonable cost and delay. <br />The City Attorney's 2018 memo discusses Senate Bill 1051. The Applicant is not sure <br />what to make of this discussion. For example, the City Attorney states: <br />"The law is clear that housing proposed for development within the Greenway <br />is not `buildable land' and the pre-2017 version of ORS 197.307(4) required that <br />local governments `adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, <br />conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing on <br />buildable land[ ...]There is no indication that the legislature intended to change <br />this when it passed SB 1051 with a revised version of ORS 197.307(4) that does <br />not include the reference to `buildable land."' (Emphasis by City Attorney). <br />It is difficult to conceive of any other intent of the legislature than to rub out the issue of <br />whether the clear and objective command of ORS 197.307(4) applies to land outside the <br />buildable lands inventory than the text of the new statute. Whatever it meant before, it is now <br />