<br />Staff Report on Appeal MAJ Eugene Polk Street (TIA 21-2 and ARA 21-14) Page 4 of 18 <br /> <br />the appellant, all of these factors substantially reduced the time to prepare and submit testimony <br />by the deadline. Testimony from Sean Malone states that an appeal hearing is not a remedy to <br />procedural errors. <br /> <br />The appellant also asserts that the completeness review done in August, 2021, for the initial <br />application, is invalid since the new October 15, 2021 materials replaced the original application <br />and that there are substantial and legal differences between “supplemental” and that which <br />“replaces” and “supercedes.” <br /> <br />Planning Director’s Decision <br />The Planning Director addressed the appellant’s first argument on page 3 and 4 of the decision. <br />The Permit and information Center has been physically closed to the public due to the pandemic <br />since March of 2020. As a courtesy to the public, the transportation engineer seal page and <br />application pages were subsequently added to the on-line information to match the paper record. <br />The paper applications showed the state of ownership at the time the applications were submitted <br />on June 1, 2021. Since that time of original application, the developer has purchased the property. <br />In response to public testimony, the applicant provided revised applications showing past and <br />current ownership. Although ownership of the lot has no bearing on the approval criteria for the <br />two applications, this information was entered into the record and added to the on-line <br />information as a courtesy. <br /> <br />Regarding completeness review comments, the Director addressed completeness review on page <br />4. The application was reviewed and deemed complete on August 27, 2021. The applicant chose to <br />submit supplemental materials after that date in response to public testimony, as is their right. <br />The supplemental materials submitted on December 13, 2021, are not new applications. The <br />modified information was submitted as a convenience to community members as a version <br />control strategy to facilitate the new public comment period based on the most up-to-date <br />information. Informal “completeness review” for the December 13, 2021 information was <br />conducted by staff, also as a courtesy. <br /> <br />Additional Comments on Appeal <br />Once it became known that several pages of the applicant’s digital version of the application <br />materials on the City’s website did not match the paper official version, staff replaced the project <br />applications and traffic engineer seal page so an accurate version was easily available to the <br />public. Rather than diminishing the public’s ability to provide testimony, this approach ensured the <br />public had the correct information without the need to make an appointment to view the official <br />paper record at the Permit and Information Center. Since the office is closed to the general public, <br />this action provided the most effective and efficient way to provide the accurate information <br />under review. <br /> <br />The applicant has the right to modify their application in response to testimony. Informal <br />completeness review for the set of information submitted by the applicant on December 13, 2021, <br />was performed by Public Works staff on December 15, 2021, and is in the record. <br />The applicant’s attorney addresses the topics in Issue 1 in his statement on pages 1 through 4. <br />Staff concurs with his assessment (see attachment F), as further discussed below.