Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Fred Wilson, Hearings Official July g, 2016 Page 6 During the second step of statutory analysis, courts will consider any legislative history proffered for "whatever its worth - and whatever its worth is for the court to decide." State z). Gable,;, 346 Or 160, 170-172 (2009). In this particular case, the Goal Post Rule was adopted as Section 27 of HB 2295 in 1983 as part of a major overhaul of Oregon's recently adopted land use system. The Applicant requested and reviewed the entire legislative history and found no substantive discussion of the provision. The legislative history is silent on this matter and is of no help to either side. Assuming that after examitung the text and context above (including any legislative history) there was still some doubt as to the meaning of the Gal Post Rule, the courts will employ general maxims of construction in aiding their interpretation. State r). Getirles, 346 Or 160, 164-165 (2009). Those maxims include the maxim that courts construe statutes so as to avoid absurd results, State i~ 11"alker, 192 Or App 535, 541-542 (2004), and that courts presume that the legislature did not mean to enact a meaningless statute. FDPPO r.,. lVashhl tolz Co., 142 Or App 252, 259 (1996). The City Attorney Merno's proposed interpretation is absurd. It would effectively obviate the very protection the legislature implemented when it adopted the Goal Post Rule. Instead, the City's interpretation would replace the very clear mandate under the Goal Post Rule that the rules (i.e. standard and criteria) goveriung an application's approval are frozen at the time the application is subnutted Xvith a complicated, bi-furcated system where some rules would be frozen while others were not. Under the. City's interpretation a successful applicant at the discretionary permit stage would only be assured of "half a loaf" (i.e. approval of the use) with the other "half a loaf" (i.e. build out of the approved use) subject to whatever later enacted "construction and development standards" the City may choose to adopt and apply. Under the City's interpretation, the protections the legislature sought to implement by adopting the Goal Post Rule are illusory because any subsequently adopted legislation could "move the goal posts." In other words, the City is arguing for an interpretation that would render the Goal Post Rule's protection a "meaningless act." II. Analysis of Caselaw Applying the Goal Post Rule A. Caselaw Not Cited by the City Attorney While the City Attorney Memo cites multiple cases (discussed in Section II.B below) to support its position, it does so in a very casual manner and, perhaps more importantly, fails to cite and analyze three cases that settle the question in the applicant's favor. To be sure these three cases, analyzed below, contradict the City's position as do the cases cited by the City. AG--