materials submitted on March 23, 2022, however, on March 31, 2022 the SHPO staff submitted a new <br />letter which removed the reference to ORS 358.653. OAR 358.653 requires that a local government <br />consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer when property owned by the local government is <br />being transferred, sold, demolished, substantially altered or allowed to deteriorate. ORS 358.653 is not <br />relevant to the current applications, as the subject property is not owned by the City of Eugene. <br /> <br />Alternative Designs <br />Some of the testimony in the record poses questions to the Board and offers alternative ways to <br />approach the design of the project. These comments are primarily made by Baker, Carter, Pincus and <br />Kunowski. The comments generally call for the applicant to start their design process over, or to at least <br />find a way to retain the historic buildings and landscape instead of removing them from the site to <br />provide the proposed building. <br /> <br />While the desire to have the applicant provide additional design options as an alternative that could <br />result in the preservation of the historic structures and landscape is understandable, it is not within the <br />Board’s authority to require this under the applicable approval criteria. The applicant has submitted a <br />land use application which is subject to the required decision-making timelines in the Eugene Code and <br />State law. This means that the Board is obligated to reach a decision on the application submitted by the <br />applicant by April 22, 2022. The Board cannot simply pause the process to require the applicant to <br />propose different designs or undertake other processes that might be recommended or desired by some, <br />such as re-evaluation of the original historic nomination by State and Federal agencies. <br /> <br />Scope of Review <br />In testimony submitted on March 31, 2022 Baker suggests that the adjustment request from the <br />applicant is better suited for review by the Eugene Planning Commission. Baker requests that the Board <br />deny the adjustment request and leave the question of its approval to the Eugene Planning Commission <br />on an assumed appeal. <br /> <br />Adjustment Reviews are typically Planning Director decisions which are reviewed by staff. Because the <br />applicant has requested that their applications be reviewed concurrently, the Board is required to make <br />a decision about the Adjustment Review based on the approval criteria. <br /> <br />Supportive Testimony <br />The Board received a number of letters that expressed general support of the application and spoke to <br />the positive outcome that the proposed housing would have on the community. While supportive, the <br />comments did not provide evidence that was directly applicable to approval criteria or factors. <br /> <br />V. CONCLUSION <br />Based on the findings included in this Order, the Historic Review Board approves the applicant’s Historic <br />Demolition application based on the applicant’s demonstration of compliance with the applicable <br />approval criteria in the Eugene Code and the factors provided by OAR 660-023-0200(8)(a). The Historic <br />Review Board conditionally approves the applicant’s Historic Property Alteration and Adjustment Review <br />applications based on compliance with the following conditions of approval: <br /> <br />Attachment A