Public Testimony - Laserfiche WebLink

the appeal hearing, the city is obligated to allow the parties an opportunity to review and respond to the revision). Failure to provide such an opportunity can be procedural error and a basis for remand, if the petitioner demonstrates that the procedural error prejudiced his substantial rights. ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). * * * "It is not clear to us what kind of evidence responding to the withdrawal could be presented that would have a bearing on whether the vacation of West 12th Avenue is in the public interest, but we cannot say that no such evidence exists. We conclude that the city committed procedural error in accepting a revised application without providing a reasonable opportunity for parties to submit responsive evidence, and that petitioner has adequately demonstrated that the city's procedural error prejudiced his substantial rights. The third assignment of error is sustained." The City staff likewise cannot say that the applicant's request to alter their TIA application which the City may not even have noticed or made available to the public is immaterial. The applicant must submit a revised application, which the City must then notice and have available to the public. The deadline for submitting comments must then be calculated based on the date of this notice. Purely as a matter of transparency, I let you know that I would appeal if the City approved the application without having provided the necessary notice and ensured that the public had available for review and comment a TIA that accurately reflects the actual development proposal. I also pointed out that the applicant had explicitly documented their intent to get TIA approval for a multi- phase development. The applicant should be aware that either under the current process; or in the future, if an owner of the property submitted a subsequent, separate application for a multi-unit apartment on lot 18400, the removal of this "phase" could be construed as improperly excluding the impact of the apartments from an altered TIA application. I appealed this exact circumstance in LUBA No. 2012-68, but I requested the appeal be dismissed before it was decided as part of a negotiated settlement with Capstone. The issue was never adjudicated and remains an open question, potentially also subject to appeal. Sincerely, Paul Conte 1461 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 Earth Advantage Accreditations: * Sustainable Homes Professional * Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Specialist On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 3:50 PM Paul Conte <paul.t.conteCgmail.com> wrote: Hey Mike, Please add me to the "Interested Parties" list for these two applications.