Oregon's goal post rule, it did not include or apply a statutory analysis as required by State <br />v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009). <br />On July 8, 2016, the applicant submitted written analysis of Oregon's goal post rule and <br />argument opposing the City Attorney's position. The applicant's response included an <br />extensive discussion and analysis of LUBA's and the Oregon Court of Appeal's decisions <br />interpreting and applying Oregon's goal post rule including all of the decisions referenced by <br />the City Attorney as well as additional applicable decisions not considered by the City <br />Attorney. In addition, the applicant's analysis included a Gaines statutory analysis of <br />Oregon's goal post rule which also supported its position. Contrary to the City Attorney, the <br />applicant contends that under Oregon's goal post rule, <br />[T]he approval of a `permit' (i.e. `discretionary approval of a proposed <br />development of land')... carries with it the right to obtain the building permits <br />that are necessary to build the approved proposed development of land, <br />provided that the applicant seeks and obtains those building permits within <br />the time specified in the permit itself or in accordance with any applicable <br />land use regulations that establish a deadline for seeking and obtaining <br />required building permits. Gagnier v. City of Gladstone, 38 Or LUBA 858, <br />865 (2000)(Emphasis LUBA's) <br />And that the goal post rule, <br />implicitly requires that the city apply a consistent set of standards to the <br />discretionary approval of the proposed development of land and the <br />construction of that development in accordance with the discretionary <br />approval. Gagnier v. City of Gladstone, 38 Or LUBA 858, 865 (2000) <br />On July 15, 2016, the City Attorney issued a further memorandum reaffirming her initial <br />position. The City Attorney's affirmation of her prior position was based in part on the belief <br />that Eugene's code imposes a bifurcated, two-stage approval process where "the CUP <br />approval gives permission for the use of land, and subsequent development permits are <br />needed to actually develop the land." <br />While the applicant and City Attorney disagreed as to the scope and application of Oregon's <br />goal post rule to the application and subsequent development approved under the CIR <br />CUP, they both agreed that the HO should address the issue in his decision. In addition, <br />the applicant requested that the HO adopt a condition of approval expressly addressing the <br />standards and criteria that would be applied to development approved under the CIR CUP <br />application. <br />On July 31, 2016, the HO issued his decision approving the application for 172 units of <br />controlled income and rent ("HO Decision"). The HO's Decision, however, declined to <br />address the issue of applicability of subsequently adopted standards and criteria to future <br />building permits as "speculative and advisory" and accordingly, rejected the applicant's <br />proposed condition of approval regarding the same. The HO's belief that a decision on the <br />application of the goal post rule would be speculative and advisory was in part predicated <br />on his assumption that Eugene's code imposed a two-step approval process and that "[u]ntil <br />any future applications are submitted, any decision about what standards and criteria apply <br />to those applications would be pure speculation." <br />2 <br />