Public Testimony (Opposition) - Laserfiche WebLink

GIOELLO Nick R From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 3:06 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: PW and staff reports improperly neglect various standards Nick, Please add to the record for PDT 17-1 and consider the issue below raised for future appeal. There are multiple occasions in the PW Referral Response and the Staff Report, where compliance with a mandatory standard is not evaluated; and, instead, there is a comment such as: "Compliance with this standard will be determined at the time of the building permit * * This is not adequate for the HO to approve the Tentative PUD. Here's what the City has to do: In Butte II, LUBA went on to state: "'[I]n a line of cases based on Meyer v. City of Portland, 67 Or App 274, 678 P2d 741 (1984) and Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442 (1992), the Court and LUBA have held that, in a two-stage approval process such as subdivision approval, where a problem is identified that raises concerns whether proposed development can comply with applicable approval criteria, the local government may, among other options, adopt findings demonstrating that solutions to the identified problem are 'feasible"' i.e., 'possible, likely and reasonably certain to succeed. Meyer, 67 Or App at 280, n 5. In Rhyne, we explained that: 'Assuming a local government finds compliance, or feasibility of compliance, with all approval criteria during a first stage (where statutory notice and public hearing requirements are observed), it is entirely appropriate to impose conditions of approval to assure those criteria are met and defer responsibility for assuring compliance with those conditions to planning and engineering staff as part of a second stage. * * * 'Where the evidence presented during the first stage approval proceedings raises questions concerning whether a particular approval criterion is satisfied, a local government essentially has three options potentially available. First, it may find that although the evidence is conflicting, the evidence nevertheless is sufficient to support a finding that the standard is satisfied or that feasible solutions to identified problems exist, and impose conditions if necessary. Second, if the local government determines there is insufficient evidence to determine the feasibility of compliance with the standard, it could on that basis deny the application. Third, * * * instead of finding that the standard is not met, it may defer a determination concerning compliance with the standard to the second stage. In selecting this third option, the local government is not finding all applicable approval standards are complied with, or that it is feasible to do so, as part of the first stage approval (as it does under the first option described above).