Mr. Ken Helm <br />November 8, 2013 <br />Page Five- <br />and Mr. Mittge are relying on the impermissible insertion of terms into the language of <br />ORS 197.763(6)(c). (ORS 174.010) <br />Applicant's evidence was not responsive to a new issue <br />In any case, however, the issue of the "classification of Oakleigh Lane" was introduced long <br />before the first week the record was left open, and Mr. Mittge's claim is patently false. The <br />"Applicant's Written Statement," dated June 14, 2013 states: <br />"Currently, Oakleigh Lane is classified as a Low-Volume Residential Street per Eugene's <br />adopted street standards." (Page 43. Italics in original, underline added.) <br />Further, In an e-mail, dated August 29, 2013, from Daniel Ingram, a Senior Engineering Associate <br />for Lane County, to Becky Taylor, the Eugene planner handling this application, Mr. Ingram <br />described the classification of Oakleigh Lane as a "Local Access Road": <br />"West of the City of Eugene portion of Oakleigh Lane, Oakleigh Lane is a Local Access Road- <br />(LAR) within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary." <br />Further, the Eugene Public Works Referral Response, dated September 17, 2013, cites the <br />applicant's June 14 statement: <br />"Staff concurs with the applicant's assessment on page 43 of the written statement that <br />Oakleigh Lane is a low-volume local street." (Page 10.) <br />Further, the Eugene Planning Staff Report, dated September 2013, on page 15 refers to Oakleigh <br />Lane's classification: "motorists traveling on Oakleigh lane (a low-volume street)." <br />Thus, there is an abundance of direct discussion of Oakleigh Lane's classification by the <br />applicant himself and in numerous reports in the record before the first week that the record <br />was left open. <br />My October 25, 2013 letter also demonstrated, although it was not necessary, that the issue of <br />Oakleigh Lane's right-of-way was also introduced in the applicant's own written statement and <br />referred to in many instances in the record prior to the public hearing. <br />Applicant's evidence was,not responsive to new evidence <br />The applicant's evidence submitted during the second week was ,not responsive to any new <br />evidence submitted in the first week. Leaving aside the other documents submitted by the <br />applicants on October 16,_ the two letters from Access Engineering and Poage Engineeringlo <br />submitted evidence of only one sort - documents purporting to show right-of-way dedications <br />that would demonstrate that portions of the Oakleigh Lane right-of-way are wider than twenty <br />feet." <br />OMC_PDT'13-1_Access Engineering Letter2.pdf and OMC_PDT 13-1_Poage Engineering Letter w Files.pdf. <br />11 The applicant's new evidence, even if it were permissible and valid, would still mean Oakleigli Lane lacks <br />adequate right-of-way for safe and efficient handling of the projected traffic an•d pedestrian and bicycle use. <br />416 <br />