Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Fred Nilson, Hearings Official July 8, 2016 Page 4 respect to any approval as to scare off any potential developer willing to bring affordable housing to south Eugene. 1. Goal Post Rule - ORS 227.178(3) The Goal Post Rules for cities and counties were originally adopted in 1983 as "protective" measures for both applicants and opponents of land use applications in order for all parties to know what the rules at play for a particular project would be. Dal,eraport Ciy of Tigard, 121 Or App 135, 141 (1993). Additionally, LUBA has stated that the Goal Post Rule "provides permit applicants protection from changing approval standards." Kiapal Lz,uIIt SGltc711 1. DOla~las Co in1 l 18 Or LUBA 651, 659 (1990). The Goal Post Rules have been broadly interpreted by the Oregon Court of Appeals to effectuate that purpose. See,eraerally, Davenport, 121 Or App at 141. The Goal Post Rule for cities reads as follows: "If an application was complete when first submitted or the applicant subiruts the requested additional information 11`7thin 180 days of the date the application was first subntted and the city has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251, approval or denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first subn-iitted." ORS 227.178(3)(x) (Emphasis irune). As you are well aware, Oregon courts employ a three-step test when interpreting statutes. PGE i~ BOLT, 317 Or 606 (1993) as modified by the Court's decision in Stale r. Gai,ies, 346 Or 160 (2009). The first step of any statutory analysis is to exal-une the text and contest together. PGE v. BOLL, 317 Or 606, 610 (1993)("rf]he text of the statutory- provision itself is the starting point for interpretation and is the best evidence of the legislature's intent."). "[T]ext should not be read in isolation but must be considered in context." T Semcka v. Saf,aeva)) Stoaes, Iaac•. 337 Or 502, 508-510 (2004). Context includes "the context of the provision at issue, which includes other provisions of the same statute and other related statutes." PGE at 611. Related statutes include those enacted at the same time as or before the statute being construed, Stull v Hoke, 326 Or 72, 79-80 (1997), and include those statutes on the same subject, or statutes that directly or indirectly refer to each other. State v. Betts, 235 Or 127, 136-138 (1963). The term "standards and criteria" is a term of art. The common understanding of the term is that it is the all-encompassing phrase meant to describe all the rules of the game AGr-