Fred Wilson, Hearings Official <br />July 8, 2016 <br />Page 2 <br />9.4900, Traffic Impact Analysis Review at EC 9.8650, and <br />Stormwater Standards at EC 9.6790." Page 6. <br />While novel, the City's position is simply wrong. The City's position attempts to <br />make a legal distinction between "standards" and "criteria" where none exists. The City <br />Attorney Memo does the same: <br />"The goal post rule and applicable caselaw do not preclude the <br />city from applying, for a subsequent building permit, applicable <br />development standards that are not CUP approval criteria. The <br />goal post rule freezes the approval criteria that are applicable to <br />the application at issue; it does not preclude the city from <br />applying, during the building pernut phase, all other <br />subsequently adopted standards or regulations that are not part <br />of the approval criteria applicable to the subject zone change or <br />pernut application." <br />In essence, the City is arguing that only "approval" criteria for the discretionary uses <br />such as CUPs are subject to the Goal Post Rule, but that all other subsequently adopted <br />"development" standards (whatever the City deems those to be), such as setbacks, height <br />limitations, density requirements, stormwater standards, Goal 5 requirements, etc. are not <br />fixed by the Goal Post Rule. <br />The City's position ignores the fact that while there may be a functional distinction <br />between "approval" criteria and "development" standards, there is no legal distinction in the <br />contest of the Goal Post Rule. All rules of the game applicable to the Application are <br />embodied in the City's 2002 Eugene Code Chapter 9 and are fixed and cannot be altered by <br />subsequent land use regulations and amendments. The "approval" criteria of EC <br />9.724(2)(a)-(c) (2002) and all relevant and applicable "development" standards contained <br />within the 2002 Eugene Code Chapter 9, such as building height, setbacks, density, etc. are <br />fixed. The City cannot superimpose later-adopted land use regulations such as the new <br />multi-family development standards (EC 9.5500), the new stormwater standards (EC 9.6790 <br />through EC 9.6797), a new water resources conservation overlay zone (EC 9.4910), and the <br />new traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirement (EC 9.8670). <br />The City's narrow interpretation conflicts with the plain text of the Goal Post Rule in <br />contest and relevant case law. <br />At the outset, the Applicant advised the Hearing Official that this application has not <br />been favored by the City. Initially, the City refused to process the Applicant's application <br />when it had no legal grounds to do so. Now, the City Attorney's office has drafted a <br />memorandum advising that the City will impose the numerous, costly and restrictive land <br />AG--, <br />