Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

III. THE PUBLIC WORKS REFERRAL REPORT, JUNE 13, 2016 This appeal refers on several issues to the Public Works Referral Response submitted in regard to this CIR application by Donna Stark, Public Works Engineering on June 13, 2016. (A copy is attached). Public Works is the public agency with the expertise regarding facilities and services and the staff report should be considered expert testimony. Indeed, other than a traffic engineer's report on sight distances submitted by the applicant, there is no other expert testimony regarding this development in the record. The summary at the beginning of Public Works Referral Response clearly states that the "staff does not find there is sufficient information to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit based on the following evaluation of the criteria specific to our area of expertise, per the Eugene code in effect at the time of application". Id. p.1. (Emphasis added). The Response then analyzed the wastewater service, streets and sidewalks, and stormwater services proposed for this development. The staff's specific findings are addressed in the body of this appeal. And again at the end of its Response, Public Works reiterated that "there is insufficient information and evidence in the application materials to date, in order to find compliance with the applicable approval criteria". Id. p.4. No subsequent evidence has been provided by the applicant to counter Public Works findings. The Public Works Referral Response was incorporated by reference into my Post Hearing Submittal p.2, and was included as Attachment A to that testimony. It was also referred to in arguments in that testimony and in my subsequent Response Testimony, dated July 15, 2016. Although the Public Works Referral Response was in the record, and although Public Works has the expertise regarding public facilities and services, the Hearings Official made no reference to the Public Works Referral Response in his decision. He relied upon a statement in the Planning Division's staff report to make a blanket statement that public facilities are available to the site rather than referring to the underlying Public Works Referral Response to determine whether specific public services and facilities are currently available. Decision of the Hearings Official, CU 02-4, p.5. And he made no reference to the Public Works Referral Response in regard to the proposed private services and facilities. IV. CODE PROVISION RELEVANT TO FILING THIS APPEAL: EC 9.714 (dated September 4, 1996): Appeals Within ten days of the date that notice of the hearing's official's decision was mailed, it may be appealed to the planning commission by the owner, applicant, party, an adversely affected person, or a person entitled to notice under subsection 9.706(1) of this code. The appeal shall be made by filing a statement of issues on appeal and other information on a form prescribed by the city. The appeal shall be based on the record, shall state specifically how the hearings official failed to properly evaluate the proposed conditional use application or make a decision consistent with applicable criteria, and shall be limited to the issues raised at the evidentiary hearing that are set out in the filed statement of issues. 4