The parties spend a great deal of time discussing goal post rule cases and their. applicability <br />to the present situation. A number of those cases are not particularly relevant to the present <br />situation because they did not involve a two-step approval process like the present case where the <br />first step is approval of a certain type of use and the second step is an application for development <br />such as a building permit to actually construct the use that was approved. Even in those cases <br />involving a two-step process, the issue of what standards and criteria applied arose during the <br />second step - when for instance building permits were submitted - not during the first step. The <br />current application is just the first step, and I do not think it is appropriate or even possible to <br />decide issues that might arise during the second step. For instance, the goal post rule only applies <br />to applications for a permit. "Permit" is defined as "the discretionary approval of a proposed <br />development of land." While it seems likely that any issues regarding what standards and criteria <br />apply during a potential step two process would be discretionary, until such applications are filed <br />and responded to by the City that is not absolutely for certain. Even assuming all such applications <br />would be discretionary and permits for purposes of the goal post rule, there is hardly an exhaustive <br />list of what potential EC provisions might apply, and as the goal post cases demonstrate the nature <br />of those provisions might affect which standards and criteria apply. Even if the City is correct that <br />current standards and criteria would apply, the City acknowledges that under Gagrtier v. Citv of <br />Gladstone.. 38 Or LUBA 858 (2000), the City "may not apply development standards at the <br />building permit phase, where to do so would result in denial of a project that was previously <br />approved in the processing of a land use application." This further illustrates that the applicability <br />or inapplicability of current standards and criteria will have to be addressed individually if and <br />when they arise.' Until any future applications are submitted, any decision about what standards <br />and criteria apply to those applications would be pure speculation. <br />DECISION <br />For all the reasons set forth above, the Hearings Official APPROVES the conditional use <br />permit to construct 172 units of controlled income rent housing, subject to the following conditions <br />of approval: <br />' This illustrates the difficulty of even trying to craft conditions of approval at this stage that would be workable at a <br />later stage. A potential condition of approval would have to state which set of standards and criteria apply - except in <br />circumstances where they do not apply. I do not think there is any way to definitively state now what standards and <br />criteria might apply to any future applications. Those standards and criteria will have to be determined on a standard <br />and criterion by standard and criterion basis. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 02-4) 12 <br />