Fred Wilson, Hearings Official <br />July 8, 2016 <br />Page 7 <br />L Pete's Mountain Homeowners Assn v. Clackamas County, 227 Or <br />App 140 (2009) <br />The most recent Oregon Court of Appeals case dealing «rith the Goal Post Rule <br />stands for the proposition that development standards, such as minimum lot size <br />restrictions, are "standards and criteria" within the meaning of the Goal Post Rule. Pete'.. <br />1Ylountairz Homeorvner:rAssn v. Claekaniar County, 227 Or App 140, 148 (2009). In addition, not <br />only are development standards (such as minimum lot size restrictions, building height, <br />density requirements, setbacks, and the like) "standards and criteria" but pleasure 37 waivers <br />themselves are standards and criteria within the meaning of the Goal Post Rule. Pete',r <br />Mountain Honeorvners Ass'rr., 227 Or App at 148. <br />The Court of Appeals held: "On the one hand, the goal-post statute provides that, <br />once petitioners' application was completed, the standards and criteria that applied at the <br />time-including, as we have held, their Measure 37 waivers-cannot be changed." The fact <br />that a Measure 37 waiver, which is clearly not an "approval" criterion, and in fact is really the <br />absence of "approval" criteria and "development" standards (such as the 80-acre parcel <br />minimum), has been held by the Court to be "standards and criteria" for purposes of the <br />Goal Post Rule clearly destroys the City's argument. The term "standards and criteria" is to <br />be read and applied broadly, not narrowly as the City posits. The City's position and the <br />holding in Pete's jlllonntain Homeorvrrers Ass'rr are mutually exclusive. <br />K. Davenport v : City of Tigard, 121 Or App 135 (1993) <br />In 1990 the Cite of Tigard denied an application for an apartment development due <br />to "traffic safety" concerns related to the condition and classification of the streets and <br />intersections serving the subject property. On September 12, 1991 the city adopted a new <br />comprehensive plan transportation map that changed the classifications of certain streets <br />serving the subject property and designated new streets and street extensions. On <br />September 13, 1991, petitioners submitted a new application for approval of a 348-unit <br />apartment development. The city approved on April 28, 1992 and applied the newly- <br />adopted transportation map and development code provisions. <br />The Court of Appeals ultirnately concluded as follows: <br />"that the term `standards and criteria,' as used in ORS <br />227.178(3) and ORS 215.428(3), is not limited to the provisions <br />that may be characterized as `approval criteria' in a local <br />comprehensive plan or land use regulation.... The role that the <br />terms play in both statutes is to assure that both proponents <br />and opponents of an application that the substantive factors <br />that are actually applied and that have a meaningful impact on <br />AG-- <br />