Public Comments - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 4 September 6, 2016 and should have, filed the appeal on August 19 to ensure it was filed within 12 days of the notice of the decision. The Applicant's failure to file a timely appeal means that the Hearings Official's decision is the City's final decision and the Planning Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Therefore, the Planning Commission must dismiss the appeal for lack for jurisdiction. 2. The Applicant and the City staff exceeded the scope of the appeal by raising new issues and new evidence that were not raised before the Hearings Official. The scope of the appeal is very narrow in this case, even more narrow than the City staff indicates in its staff report to the Planning Commission. The City staff correctly noted that the Planning Commission's review is limited to the issues in the written appeal statement and the evidence in the Hearings Official's record, but it omitted one important additional limitation. The Planning Commission's review is also limited to the issues raised before the Hearings Official. EC 9.7655(3) provides: "The appeal shall include a statement of issues on appeal, be based on the record, and be limited to the issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of issues. The appeal statement shall explain specifically how and hearings official or historic review board failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with applicable criteria. The basis of the appeal is limited to the issues raised during the review of the original application." (Emphasis added). EC 9.7650 also provides that the appeal review is limited to "any facts or testimony relating to issues and materials that were submitted before or during the initial quasi-judicial public hearing process." (Emphasis added). The City Council adopted this limited appeal review because it wanted to limit the appeal to determining if the Hearings Official erred in his evaluation of the arguments and evidence, not to re-litigate the application. It is important for the Planning Commission to understand this narrow scope of review because at least two of the Applicant's arguments are based on new issues and/or evidence that were not raised before the Hearings Official. The City staff report also raises new issues and/or evidence that was not raised before the Hearings Official. The Planning Commission's role in this appeal is not to consider new issues, arguments or evidence that the Applicant elected not to raise before the Hearings Official. The Planning Commission's role is to determine if the Hearings Official erred based on the issues, arguments or evidence that the parties raised below. The appeal is not intended to be a do-over or second bite at the apple for the Applicant. It is intended to determine if the Hearings Official erred in concluding that the Applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval criteria based on the arguments and evidence that was presented to him.