PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch B - Laserfiche WebLink

GI ELL Nick From: Seat: To: Cc: bjo : Jason, @- Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Monday, October 02, 2017 6:23 PM Jason Brown Becky Dorsey; GIOELLO Nick R; Tom Bruno; Cathy Johnson,- Faris Cassell; C W Murchison; Nate Teich; Susan Hoffman; Sheryl Kelly Re: Capital Hill PUD delays Welcome to the utterly corrupt Eugene Planning Division. All of you are experiencing the lack of integrity and accountability that I've witnessed all over the City Oakleigh Lane, South Willamette, Coburg Road, I could go on an on. If Nick stands up to it at all, he'll be overridden by Gabe Flock, and the pathetic excuses we have for Planning Director and City Manager will stand by Flock. But you can beat these suckers on appeal to LUBA and the Court of Appeals. I've done it numerous times. Keep up the fight! Paul On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Jason Brown <outermark2cgmail.com> wrote: I sent an email as well and expressed the concern that at a certain point the idea an application being "complete" and there being a 120-day timeline no longer had any meaning at all. The parameters of the process exist, in part, to insure our rights as citizens. If the process means the applicant can simply spitball until they push this through without regard to the process, then our rights are abrogated. However, I already know the answer to our questions. There IS a process, and part of the process is that the process does not have to be followed. An application is deemed complete, but then the applicant can add whatever they want along the way and call up the planning department and ask what is going to be said in their report. And I am sure there is language that allows the city/planning people to offer as many extensions as they want to. My understanding of the process is that for every seeming boundary in the application process ("completeness" and 120 clocks) there is a backdoor or contradiction that allows the breaking of that boundary. 1