and conditions of approval of the 1995 CUP, in particular Condition of Approval 17. Even many <br />of opponents' arguments regarding EC 9.72=1(2) incorporate references to a required 75-foot <br />buffer. While Condition of Approval 17 from the 1995 CUP included a 75-foot buffer, there is <br />nothing in the approval criteria for a CIR housing CUP that requires a 75-foot buffer. While <br />opponents are correct that the proposed CIR housing would run afoul of the 1995 CUP and <br />Condition of Approval 17, the application is specifically based on the premise (and a condition of <br />approval) that the applicant will also obtain a new CUP regarding the cemetery use that allows <br />Zone 6 to be removed from the cemetery CUP. All of opponents' arguments regarding the 1995 <br />CUP and/or the 75-foot buffer area do not provide a basis to deny the application. <br />Although this decision approves a conditional use permit for CIR housing, the applicant <br />cannot construct the CIR housing without obtaining further approvals, such as building pen-nits. <br />Since this application was filed in 2002, the City has adopted a number of new ordinances that <br />arguably could apply to future permits for the CIR housing. The applicant explains that some of <br />those provisions cannot be satisfied and would result in the approved CUP being prevented from <br />being constructed. The applicant argues that none of the new provisions should be applicable to <br />future permits necessary to develop the CIR housing under the goal post rule. See n 1. The City <br />argues that the goal post rule would not be applicable to future applications to develop the property <br />such as building permits and that the new provisions would apply. The applicant seeks conditions <br />of approval detennining that the new provisions do not apply to any future development of the <br />CIR housing. The City seeks conditions of approval determining that the any future development <br />of the CIR housing be subject to the current provisions. <br />While I understand the applicant's desire to decide the issue (the uncertainty regarding <br />having to comply with provisions that are impossible to comply with could drive away potential <br />developers), I think any decision on this issue would be speculative and advisory. The applicant <br />and the City identify a number of potential EC provisions that they think could apply to any future <br />building permits, but even if such provisions are likely to arise they have not yet arisen and there <br />is no guarantee exactly which provisions may be at issue. The present application is for a <br />conditional use permit to construct controlled income and rent housing, this application is not for <br />building permits. Any speculation about what standards and criteria would apply to future building <br />permits would be just that - speculation. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 02-4) 11 <br />