Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

APP-6 The Applicant/HBA argues that its appeal issues do not need to be limited to the issues raised before the HO. Further, they assert that if the PC finds new evidence, it should strike the evidence and not the entire issue being raised. On October 11. 2012: The SEN responded that the request to strike is also based on the Applicant's failure to raise the alleged deficiencies of Mr. Matthew's map before the HO. PC Determination: With respect to EC 9.7655(2), "No new evidence pertaining to appeal issues shall be accepted," the PC rejects the two graphics imbedded in the Applicant/NBA's appeal statement at page 8. The PC finds that these "re-creations" are more than admissible manipulations of existing record evidence. The-set of graphics provided in the Applicant/NBA's October 9 letter are acceptable and those graphics may be consulted instead of the ones at page 8 of the Applicant/NBA's appeal statement; references to the stricken graphics are also stricken or ignored. The remaining text in the appeal statement relevant to the October 9 graphics, and as discussed in the following paragraph, are retained as part of the record. That critique of Mr. Matthews' map can be argued based on the record evidence. With regard to EC 9.7655(3), "limiting an appeal to issues raised during the review of the original .application," the PC reject SEN's contention that the Applicant/HBA raises a new issue in its first assignment of error (sections 3 and 4). The PC considers the issues raised in the Applicant/HBA appeal. The PC disagrees with assertions made by both SEN and the Applicant/HBA. The PC does not agree with the Applicant/HBA assertion that the code allows it to raise'a new issue to the PC. However, the PC also disagrees with SEN's assertion that that the Applicant/HBA has actually raised a new issue. The record before the HO very clearly includes assertions about the correctness of the various slope maps in the record. In the Applicant's final argument, it directs such assertions specifically at the "Matthews Map." SEN contends that every argument pertaining to an appeal issue must have been made in the initial review process. The PC disagrees. For these reasons, the PC considers the issues raised in the Applicant/HBA appeal. Applicant/HBA Request that the PC Take Official Notice of Documents Relevant Code Text: EC 9.7095 Quasi-Judicial Hearings - Official Notice and Record of Proceedings provides that the PC may take official notice of any public record of the City. EC 9.7655 Filing Appeal of Hearings Official or Historic Review Board Initial Decision provides that "No new evidence pertaining to appeal issues shall be accepted." (italics added for emphasis). Applicant/HBA: In their Appeal Statement., the Applicant/HBA has asked the PC to take official notice of several HO decision documents on other PUD applications to support their argument that the HO decision on the modification to lot standards is unprecedented in Eugene. PC Determination: The PC denies the request for official notice. The documents are being offered by the-Applicant/HBA-as substantive evidence to aid in its Appeal Issues #3 and #4. This is arguably inconsistent with EC 9.7655 Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 5