days after the meeting. The applicant submitted the CUP application only after the initial <br />comment period on the staff report revealed that the CUP should be required. The application <br />was deemed incomplete because of the requirement to hold a new neighborhood meeting. The. <br />applicant invoked its right to "force" the application complete, as the proposed development in <br />the CUP application never substantially changed from what the applicant provided at the initial <br />neighborhood meeting. <br />The hearing official is thus left with having to determine whether the requirement for a <br />neighborhood meeting was intended to address a situation where the need for a second <br />application was discovered late in the process, where the two applications contain many similar <br />criteria; and where there was no substantial change in the proposal. EC 9.7007(2) states that <br />the purpose of the neighborhood meeting "is to provide a means for the applicant and <br />surrounding property owners and residents to meet and review the proposal, share <br />information, and identify issues regarding the proposal." The applicant did hold a neighborhood <br />meeting and neither the project nor the code changed between the neighborhood meeting and <br />the CUP application. The neighborhood had the opportunity to review the proposal, share <br />information, and identify issues. If there would have been any new issues relating specifically <br />to the CUP application, then it would be the applicant that could not have taken advantage of <br />learning from surrounding property owners and residents. In this case, some of the issues that <br />the neighborhood identified during the hearing and in post-hearing submittals may have come <br />as a surprise to the applicant. That was the applicant's risk by choosing not to hold a second <br />meeting and gambling that the hearing official would not deny the application for that choice. <br />The hearing official concludes that the applicant's failure to hold a second neighborhood <br />meeting specifically for the CUP application and submission of the CUP application more than <br />180 days after the neighborhood meeting was not fatal to the CUP application. <br />Appeal Fees - Bill Kloos, on behalf of the Oakway Neighbors, raises the issue of appeal fees in <br />testimony. The City of Eugene's Appeal fees are set by administrative order. It is understood <br />that the issue has been raised to prepare for a possible local a.ppeal of the decision to the <br />Planning Commission. At this point no appeal has been filed so no further response to the <br />appeal fee issue is included at this time. <br />At the hearing, Mr. Kloos stated that he was raising this issue at this time solely to preserve it <br />for appeal. This issue does not require a response by the hearing official. <br />Evaluation of the Planned Unit Development Criteria: <br />EC 9.8320(1) The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan. <br />The Parks and Open Space designation includes existing publicly owned parks as well as publicly <br />and privately owned golf courses and cemeteries. Testimony provided asserts that a <br />telecommunications facility is not consistent with the open space designation in the Metro <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 5 <br />