conditions of approval contained in the Hearings Official's decision that represent an <br />inappropriate deferral of compliance to a later stage in the process without the required <br />opportunity for public input and review. <br />Regarding the additional list of items deferred to a later time but not specifically addressed as a <br />condition of approval, in all PUD applications, this is standard practice to provide information <br />items related to compliance with code requirements that will need to be addressed as part of <br />subsequent permitting processes. In the above list of future review items, it is apparent that <br />these items are typically associated with the building permit or public improvement permitting <br />stage of development, neither of which constitute land use decisions and both of which require <br />a more extensive level of plans and details then is required at the PUD approval stage. The <br />above list of future review items is typical for PUDs of this type, and provides for consistency <br />and compliance with code requirements in a normal and logical sequence. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Appeal Issue #31: The Hearings Official stated, ""The city deemed the application <br />complete on August 29, 2017". This is an error because the applicant forced <br />completion at that date, while there were issues remaining that Eugene Planning <br />considered unsatisfied (Hearings Official Decision, page 4). <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official does not make a decision on when an application is deemed complete, <br />and therefore no decision on this issue was made. <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The City deemed the application complete on August 29, 2017. This is an error because the <br />applicant forced completion at that date, while there were issues remaining that Eugene <br />Planning considered unsatisfied (Hearings Official Decision, page 4). <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />The Hearings Official made a statement of fact based on information provided by staff, only for <br />background information purposes. The Hearings Official has no authority on determining the <br />day an application is deemed complete; that authority belongs to the applicant and City. More <br />importantly, the applicant has the right under State law and the Eugene Code to request that <br />an application be deemed complete even if the applicant has not provided all of the <br />information or materials requested by staff. This, in and of itself, is not a basis for reversal or <br />denial of a given land use application. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 40 <br />