Fortunately, all of these objections, without fail, disappeared once these excellent homes were <br />constructed. For 30 years my wife and I have lived in south Eugene less than a mile from this <br />property and I support Cathedral Park without hesitation. I know it will be a benefit to the <br />community I live in. <br />The issue then isn't the need for this housing. That's a given. It also shouldn't be the location <br />which is terrific and part of our precious buildable land inventory. It's more about the rules for <br />making it happen. The key decision can not be punted again. It's not a can to be kicked down <br />the road unless your intent is to kill a low-income housing project. We believe the rules of the <br />game are clear and can not be changed now that the game has begun. I, for one, am <br />disappointed that the city staff, for whatever reason, is taking a position contrary to supporting <br />low-income housing development. <br />The critical issue in front of you tonight is what is known as the goalpost rule. It's a metaphor. <br />You don't move the goalposts in a football game once the game has begun. It doesn't only <br />apply to the football goalposts of course. It applies to any and all rule changes once the game <br />has started. This project was submitted under a particular set of rules and state law clearly says <br />that the rules, standards and criteria at that time are fixed and must apply in the future. It should <br />be simple. <br />Are these new rules critical? Well, I'll only comment that virtually all of the homes built around <br />Cathedral Park / Rest Haven were constructed prior to 2002 and they sure look great and aren't <br />causing problems. I'm in that area all the time. I don't see or experience any glaring problems. <br />I've yet to be in a traffic jam on Willamette street anywhere south of Crest Drive. <br />The hearings official did an excellent and thorough job of ruling on the application. But in <br />keeping with the football theme, he punted to the Planning Commission on this goalpost issue . <br />Perhaps he felt that this was a policy issue for a larger body such as the Planning Commission <br />to determine. The City Attorney has written an opinion that the Planning Commission can rule <br />on this. <br />City staff is making a peculiar argument that I can't get my arms around. They are claiming that <br />some more recently adopted land-use and regulatory requirements can be instead applied <br />through the building permit process. These are things that were not part of the building permit <br />process before and aren't now. They are land use issues. More importantly, these would be <br />new requirements that were not in place in 2002. <br />NO! <br />There is no issue in accepting all legitimate building permit issues that relate to life safety, stable <br />construction and fire safety. That is a given and is a legitimate purpose for being issued a <br />building permit. But to tack on land use requirements and claim that they are part of getting a <br />building permit is clearly changing the rules once the game has begun. You can't claim that you <br />haven't moved the goalposts when instead you are adding 50 yards to the playing field when a <br />3 <br />