Fred Nilson, Hearings Official <br />July 8, 2016 <br />Page 10 <br />that was previously approved in the processing of a land use <br />application. Ga slier r.'. City ol Gladsloiie, 38 Or LUBA 858 (2000). <br />Therefore, where strict compliance with one or more of the <br />multi-family standards from EC 9.5500 would require denial of <br />the proposal, some of the multi-fanuly standards may not <br />apply." Pg. 3. <br />Contrary to the City Attorney Memo's general proclamations, the actual holding is <br />not limited to only those cases where the building perinit would effectuate a denial of the <br />original approval. The holding is much broader than that. Rather, the Goal Post Rule <br />"c0inpe1s the city to apply a consistent set of `standards and criteria' to both to the variance <br />application and to the application to construct the use proposed in the variance application." <br />Ga iuer at 867 (Emphasis mine). That compulsion applies regardless of whether the later <br />enacted standard would deny, litnit, alter or have no effect whatsoever on the already <br />approved development. <br />"The purpose of [the Goal Post Rule] is to assure that `the substantive factors that are <br />actually applied and that have a meaningful impact on the decision permitting or denying an <br />application will remain constant throughout the proceedings."' Geioiiier at 864. The Goal <br />Post Rule "implicitly requires that the city apply a consistent set of standards to the <br />discretionary approval of the proposed development of land and the construction of that <br />development in accordance with the discretionary approval." Gagilier at 865. (Emphasis <br />mine). "Mhe approval of a `permit' (i.e. `discretionary approval of a proposed development <br />of land')... carries with it the right to obtain the building permits that are necessary to build <br />the approved proposed development of land, protided that the applicant seeks and obtains <br />those building permits within the time specified in the pernut itself or in accordance with any <br />applicable land use regulations that establish a deadline for seeking and obtaining required <br />building permits." Ga7;iiier at 865. (Emphasis in original) The Goal Post Rule "compels the <br />cite to apply a consistent set of `standards and criteria' to both the [original] application and the <br />application to construct the use proposed in the [original] application." GaJ i'Cr at 867. <br />(Emphasis mine). <br />Of additional unport in the Geiawer case is the fact that the city made a similar <br />argument as the City does in this case - that the variance did not "approve" a specific use, <br />but the variance merely approved a variance from the front yard setback requirement. <br />According to the city in GcTginei, because the city did not approve the duplex through the <br />variance process, the city's action to deny the building permit to construct the duplex "did <br />not effectively deny the variance." Id at 866. LUBA rejected the City argument stating: <br />"In order to obtain a variance, petitioner submitted a proposal <br />for a particular use, along with sufficient information about that <br />use to allow the city to approve or deny the -variance ...The city <br />does not contend that the duplex proposed in the building <br />AG <br />