Public Comments Received at Hearing

standards and criteria, whether at the land use permit phase or when building permits are pulled and that it is entitled to know now what standards and criteria apply to the approved CIR CUP application and development granted thereunder. The applicant is correct on both counts. The PC hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the applicant's analysis and argument contained in its July 8, 2016 submission as well as its July 22, 2016 final argument and August 11, 2016 appeal statement. The PC rejects the analysis and argument of the City Attorney contained in its June 29, 2016 and July 15, 2016 memorandums. Under Oregon law, the applicant is entitled to know which standards and criteria will apply to its permit application including the building permits issued therewith. ORS 197.763(3)(a) provides that the initial notice of a hearing for a land use application shall, "[l]ist the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to the application at issue[.]" ORS 227.173(3) then obligates the City to inform the applicant, as part of the decision, as to the standards and criteria "considered relevant to the decision" approving or denying the permit application. The PC concludes that the HO had an obligation to determine and notify the applicant as to which standards apply the permit application and development approved thereunder (including standards and criteria to be applied to building permits issued for approved "development" sought in the application) and which standards and criteria do not apply. It was an error for the HO not to render such a decision. Further, the HO erred when he found that the Eugene code imposes a two-step approval process. It does not. Under EC 9.724, applications for CIR housing are required to submit and obtain approval of a conditional use permit. There is no other, separate, distinct or subsequent approval process, such as site review, for construction of the development approved under the CUP. The PC concludes that the applicant has submitted and obtained approval of the proposed CIR housing through a conditional use permit as required by EC 9.724 and that no other, separate, distinct or subsequent approval is required. To the extent that the HO found that the goal post rule applies only to freeze the standards and criteria applicable to discretionary permits applications and not the underlying building permits implementing the use approved in the discretionary application, that finding is also in error. A "permit" is the "discretionary approval of a proposed development of land, under ORS 227.215 or city legislation ore regulation." ORS 227.160(2). "Development" means "a building making a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land and creating or terminating a right of access." ORS 227.215(1). Approval of a permit application, therefore, includes approval of the underlying "development" sought in the application. The PC concludes that, "the approval of a `permit' (i.e. `discretionary approval of a proposed development of land')... carries with it the right to obtain the building permits that are necessary to build the approved proposed development of land, provided that the applicant seeks and obtains those building permits within the time specified in the permit itself or in accordance with any applicable land use regulations that establish a deadline for seeking and obtaining required building permits. Gagnier v. City of Gladstone, 38 Or LUBA 858, 865 (2000)(Emphasis LUBA's). The PC further concludes that the goal post rule, "implicitly requires that the city apply a consistent set of standards to the discretionary approval of the proposed development of land and the construction of that development in accordance with the discretionary approval. Gagnier v. City of Gladstone, 38 Or LUBA 858,865(2000)