Eugene Planning Commission <br />August 11, 2016 <br />Page 6 <br />There are two basic reasons why the Planning Commission should approve the Applicant's <br />requested condition of approval. One is a legal argument; the other is a policy argument. <br />A. The requested condition is correct under the law. <br />As noted above, the Applicant and the City have presented detailed and lengthy legal arguments <br />related to the application of the fixed goal post rule to this application and to subsequent <br />applications to implement the CIR CUP approval. The Applicant's memoranda are attached to <br />this statement and the arguments presented in those memoranda are hereby incorporated into <br />this appeal statement. <br />In sununary, case law interpreting ORS 227.178(3)(a) has held that the fixed goal post rule <br />applies to subsequent building permit and development processes that implement the initial, <br />broader land use application that approves a general use, such as the CUP here. The reasoning <br />behind that is simple - it precludes the application of future changes to land use regulations that <br />might prevent the development of a prior land use decision. <br />The Hearings Official's decision has already applied the principle set forth in the statute. <br />Conditions of Approval 3, 7 and 8 expressly require compliance with the standards in effect at <br />the time (the 2002 version of the Eugene Code and the November 1999 Eugene Arterial & <br />Collector Street Plan street standards) instead of requiring compliance with the current <br />standards. His authority to do so is provided under ORS 227.178(3)(a). It is indeed unfortunate <br />that he chose to side-step the issue of whether to mandate consistency with ORS 227.178(3)(a) <br />in all instances. The Planning Commission is the Hearings Official's back-stop; you have the <br />authority to correct his error. <br />Planning Commission approval of this appeal and the imposition of the requested condition of <br />approval is consistent with the legal analysis and precedent set forth in the attached memoranda <br />and will ensure that the development envisioned in the approved CIR CUP can be realized. <br />B. The requested condition is good public policy supporting affordable housing. <br />The other reason the Planning Commission should approve this appeal rests on policy grounds. <br />The Hearings Official elected to kick the can down the road so that future developers of needed <br />housing on the property will have to litigate, case by case, standard by standard basis in any <br />future development application. The Plamling Commission can settle this issue here and now, <br />thereby ensuring that affordable housing development organizations will know the applicable <br />standards before they design a project rather than as a result of litigation. <br />Imagine the amount of litigation that could result if the site is developed through two or three <br />phases? Affordable housing development organizations will have to negotiate with the City as <br />to which standards from the old code apply and which standards from the new code apply. That <br />decision can then be challenged by opponents on a standard by standard basis. The end result is <br />