I ELL Nick <br />Susan, please thank Nick for the insightful information. I would like you to ask the following questions. <br />The application was a'"forced" completion by the applicant. When application was forced by applicant the <br />applicant had x number of lots and y number of dwellings. In November, the applicant changed a "force <br />completion" to x + 1 and y + 2. <br />On seven March can the applicant change a "forced" application to change the number of lots (x) and dwellings <br />(Y) ? <br />What is the purpose and how does a "forced completion" protect the citizens against the applicant's PUD. It <br />appears the "forced completion is meaningless. It is very difficult for citizen's to write a response and prepare <br />an appropriate response to continuous major changes to a "forced completion." It appears to me, the city needs <br />a base line (time) in order to do a complete and thorough review to ensure the applicant "conforms" to the <br />engineering, Geotechnical, hydrology, safety, traffic, Tree and other PUD "requirements" to city codes; county <br />codes; state laws and federal laws. How can / does the city attend a hearing (as I understand same as a court of <br />law) if changes are made by applicant with a "forced competition" by the applicant the same day of the hearing; <br />week before hearing; or even 30 days before a hearing? <br />Bottom line as I read Nick's email, if applicant extends more than 70 days past 7 March 2018, the applicant has <br />to resubmit his application and pay a new filing fee. <br />Tom Bruno <br />Co-chair LHVC Response Committee <br />Sent from my iPhone <br />On Jan 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello'&,ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: <br />Susan, <br />So sorry to take so long to respond, came back from my holiday vacation sick with the flu, I was only in <br />the office on Friday the 29th for several hours. <br />I confirmed today that the postponement was to request a 70 day time postponement and to set a new <br />hearing date. <br />What is being referred to by the "120 clock" is regarding ORS 227.178 (Oregon Revised Statues), there is <br />a requirement that the City shall take final action including all appeals within 120 days of being deemed <br />complete (I refer to this as the 120-day clock). This part of the ORS also provides for written extension of <br />the 120-day period by the applicant. The total of all extensions shall not exceed 245 days. <br />