PC-1 November 8 2013 Conte Objection

Mr. Ken Helm November 8, 2013 Page Five and Mr. Mittge are relying on the impermissible insertion of terms into the language of ORS 197.763(6)(c). (ORS 174.010) Applicant’s evidence was notresponsive to a new issue In any case, however, the issue of the “classification of Oakleigh Lane” was introduced long before the first week the record was left open, and Mr. Mittge’s claim is patently false. The “Applicant’s Written Statement,” dated June 14, 2013 states: “Currently, Oakleigh Lane is classified as a Low-Volume Residential Streetper Eugene's adopted streetstandards.” (Page 43. Italics in original, underline added.) Further, In an e-mail, dated August 29, 2013, from Daniel Ingram, a Senior Engineering Associate for Lane County, to Becky Taylor, the Eugene planner handling this application, Mr. Ingram described the classification of Oakleigh Lane as a “Local Access Road”: “West of the Cityof Eugene portion of Oakleigh Lane, Oakleigh Lane is a Local Access Road (LAR) within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary.” Further, the Eugene Public Works Referral Response, dated September 17, 2013, cites the applicant’s June 14 statement: “Staff concurs with the applicant’s assessment on page 43 of the written statement that Oakleigh Lane is a low-volume local street.” (Page 10.) Further, the Eugene Planning Staff Report, dated September 2013, on page 15 refers to Oakleigh Lane’s classification: “motorists traveling on Oakleigh Lane (a low-volume street).” Thus, there is an abundance of direct discussion of Oakleigh Lane’s classification by the applicant himself and in numerous reports in the record before the first week that the record was left open. My October 25, 2013 letter also demonstrated, although it was not necessary, that the issue of Oakleigh Lane’s right-of-way was also introduced in the applicant’s own written statement and referred to in many instances in the record prior to the public hearing. Applicant’s evidence was notresponsive to new evidence The applicant’s evidence submitted during the second week was not responsive to any new evidence submitted in the first week. Leaving aside the other documents submitted by the 10 applicants on October 16, the two letters from Access Engineering and Poage Engineering submitted evidence of only one sort – documents purporting to show right-of-way dedications that would demonstrate that portions of the Oakleigh Lane right-of-way are wider than twenty 11 feet. 10 OMC_PDT 13-1_Access Engineering Letter2.pdf and OMC_PDT 13-1_Poage Engineering Letter w Files.pdf. 11 The applicant’s new evidence, even if it were permissible and valid, would still mean Oakleigh Lane lacks adequate right-of-way for safe and efficient handling of the projected traffic and pedestrian and bicycle use.