Staff Report on Appeal - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff Report on Appeal MAJ Eugene Polk Street (TIA 21-2 and ARA 21-14) Page 3 of 18 the record. Since the original notice was sent, 5 pieces of testimony were received from 3 individuals. Testimony received as of the date of this staff report is included as an attachment for ease of reference (see Attachment E). Any additional testimony received after the publishing of this staff report will also be forwarded directly and added to the record. Further background information on this appeal is included in the full record of materials provided separately. APPEAL PROCEDURES Appeals of Planning Director decisions are subject to the provisions at EC 9.7600 through 9.7635. The appeal hearing will follow the quasi-judicial procedures as required by EC 9.7625 and EC 9.7065-9.7095. The decision on these appeals will be based on whether the Planning Director properly evaluated the request and made a decision consistent with applicable approval criteria for the Traffic Impact Analysis at EC 9.8680 and the Adjustment Review at EC 9.8030. The decision on this appeal will be made within 15 days from the close of the public record, unless the parties agree otherwise. The Hearings Official may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Director. Once made, the decision of the Hearings Official will be final at the local level. The applicant granted two 60-day extensions. The first extension was on September 16, 2021 and the second on December 1, 2021. Therefore, the final local decision on this appeal is required by April 23, 2022 to meet the statutory 120-day deadline. Because the decision on both the TIA and the Adjustment Review is a “permit” as defined by ORS 227.160(2), in accordance with ORS 227.175(10), the appeal hearing shall be “de novo” (new evidence and information may be submitted) and the presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence is not limited to issues raised in the initial appeal statement. APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE: To assist the decision-making process in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Director’s decision, staff has identified pertinent record information and considerations below. The appeal issue topics are stated below in bold italics, followed by a summary of the appellant’s relevant assertions, summaries of, or notations to, the relevant portions of the Planning Director’s decision, and any additional comments relevant to the appeal. Appeal Issue 1: December 16, 2021 public notice did not meet statutory requirements Summary of Appellant’s Argument The first section of the appeal statement contains numerous assertions that the December 16, 2021 public notice was deficient. The appellant’s first argument is that the Planning Director erred by not having a complete application available on the public website throughout the December 16, 2021 public notice period, thus prejudicing Jefferson Westside Neighbors ability to comment effectively. The statement asserts that staff modified the application information available to the public during the comment period without a new public notice identifying what documents to rely upon. It also asserts that staff failed to provide the public all relevant information in an accurate form and in a timely way and claims the Court of Appeals holds that a person must not be expected to check the record on a daily basis (they cite “Lovinger v. City of Eugene”). According to