Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission August 11, 2016 Page 3 based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted." Consequently, the standards that apply to this application and development implementing the application differ significantly from the current Eugene Code land use regulations, which were extensively amended with the Land Use Code Update adopted soon after this application was submitted. An easy way for the Commissioners to recognize whether they are looking at a standard under the old code versus the present code is to look at the number of decimal places for the code section. If there are three decimals, it's the old code; if there are four decimals, it's the new code. For example, the definitions section of the 2002 Eugene Code is provided at EC 9.015. The definitions section of the present code is at EC 9.0500. II. Summary of Issues One issue is raised in this appeal. As noted above, the Applicant requests the Planning Commission to add an additional condition of approval that clearly states that the land use applications to develop the affordable housing on the property will be evaluated under the 2002 Eugene Code standards in effect at the time the CIR CUP application was submitted and will not be subject to the subsequently adopted standards and criteria of the current code. In short, the Hearings Official erred by not addressing the applicability of the fixed goal post rule in the decision, which was an issue raised during the proceeding and addressed exhaustively by the Applicant and the City. It should be understood that both the Applicant and the City agree that the Hearings Official should have addressed the applicability of the goal post rule issue. i The Hearings Official discusses the goal post rule issue directly on pages 11 and 12 of the decision. In relevant part, the Hearings Official states: "While I understand the applicant's desire to decide the issue (the uncertainty regarding having to comply with provisions that are impossible to comply with could drive away potential developers), I think: any decision on this issue would be speculative and advisory. The applicant and the City identify a number of potential EC provisions that they think could apply to any future building permits, but even if such provisions are likely to arise they have not yet arisen and there is no guarantee exactly which provisions tnay be at issue. The present application is for a conditional use permit to construct controlled income and rent housing, this application is not for building permits. Any speculation about what standards and criteria would apply to future building permits would be just that - speculation." Hearings Official's decision, p. 11. The root cause of the Hearing Official's error was twofold. First, the Hearing Official believed that he could not decide the issue because it "would be speculative and advisory." Second, the Hearings Official believed that the Eugene code employs a two-step approval process and that See City Attorney memorandum to Fred Wilson, Hearings Official, July 15, 2016.