Schirmer, the planners, the councilors--they have all been drinking the same pro-growth at any costs Kool-Aid. <br />Many of them are in fact graduates of the same classes/programs in planning at the UO. They are not bad <br />people--most cities are run the same way, as far as I can tell. <br />We have to get good at fighting them on their own turf. It's a learning curve for me. Much of what makes the <br />process unfair and even corrupt is hidden from the public. That's one 'way we can approach this. The other is to <br />be careful about sharing our information with them. I think we need a deliberate strategy with regard to this. <br />Yes, we want to influence the planning report. But everything we give to planning then allows the applicant to <br />ask for more time so they can-zebut it. <br />This may give us time to do what we need to do now--raise money to pay a lawyer to poke holes in this <br />process. <br />On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Paul Conte <paul.t.contekgMail.com> wrote: <br />The Eugene Code addresses this kind of issue: <br />9.7015 Application Completeness Review. The city shall review an application and, within 30 <br />days of its receipt, notify the applicant as to whether the application is complete. If the city <br />determines that the application contains sufficient information for review, the city shall advise the <br />applicant in writing that the application is deemed complete and begin the application review <br />process. If the city determines that the application is incomplete, the city shall advise the applicant <br />in writing of the necessary missing information. The city shall begin review of the application either: <br />(1) Upon receipt of all of the missing information requested by the city, or <br />(2) Upon receipt of some of the missing information and a written statement from the applicant <br />indicating that none of the other missing information will be provided; or <br />(3) Upon receipt of a written statement from the applicant indicating that none of the missing <br />information will be provided. <br />On the 181stday after being first submitted, the application will be void if the applicant has been <br />notified of the missing information and has not complied with (1), (2), or (3) of this section. <br />Once the application is deemed "complete," the applicant can submit additional information to <br />support the application, but the City cannot approve an application that is significantly different than <br />the original (i.e., "complete") application without providing the full hearing procedure for a modified <br />application. (I won a remand on this over the City's objections in the Capstone case.) <br />Although I don't know whether there's been a case decided, I believe there is some question as to <br />whether an applicant can provide information that was "missing" at the time the applicant "forced" <br />completeness under (2) or (3), above. I think this would be considered a "significant difference" from <br />the original application. <br />The City would be well advised to not consider any application changes or supplying of "missing <br />information" by the applicant within the 30 days prior to the public hearing. <br />Paul <br />