Eugene Planning Commission <br />December 16, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />EC 9.7680 explains what the Commission may do with an appeal: <br />The planning commission shall affirin, reverse, or modify, any decision, <br />determination, or requirement of the hearings offrcial or historic review board. <br />In addition, upon concurrence of the applicant, including waiver of the right to a <br />decision within 120 days, and with the payment of an additional fee, the decision <br />can be remanded to the original decision-maker. Before reversing the decision, <br />or before changing any of the conditions of the hearings official or historic review <br />board, the planning commission shall make findings of fact as to why the hearings <br />offrcial or the historic review board failed to properly evaluate the application or <br />make a decision consistent with applicable criteria. The action must be agreed to <br />by a mafority of the members present at the hearing. A tie vote results in <br />affirming the decision of the hearings official or the historic review board The <br />planning commission's action is final. <br />This appeal is filed by the applicant, on a city appeal form, in a timely fashion, with the listing <br />above of issues on appeal, all of which were raised in the record before the Hearings Official. <br />IV. Discussion of the issues: <br />Issue 1: The 19 Lot Rule meaning in the Code: The Commission should find that the <br />Hearings Official selected the wrong definition of "disperse." Neither the code language <br />nor the context for the code language requires that traffic be dispersed to any particular <br />point or distance from the project. <br />The Hearings Official concluded that the 19 Lot Rule is clear and objective and has a plain <br />meaning. Decision pages 14-15. That conclusion is patently wrong. The standard is ambiguous <br />and must be interpreted. <br />Code language is ambiguous if it can be given more than one meaning. Whether it is <br />ambiguous is a question of law, which LUBA will ask afresh. In other words, the Hearings <br />Official saying it has a plain meaning does not make it so. To determine the meaning of <br />ambiguous language the City must consider the text of the provision, the larger code context for <br />the provision, and relevant legislative history. <br />Here there are two plausible interpretations: (1) Traffic must be able to leave the site in two <br />directions on a "public local street" as defined in the code, which includes an unimproved street; <br />this is the "get out" meaning; (2) Traffic must be able to leave the site in each direction and go <br />around to the point of the beginning; this is the "go around" meaning; as explained by the staff <br />and the Hearings Official, it is the same as having "secondary access." As the Hearings Official <br />said: "[T]raffic at a minimum must be able to go somewhere in two different directions that do <br />not terminate in a dead end." Decision at 15 para 4. The first meaning fits the text, context and <br />legislative history. The second meaning, chosen by the Hearings Official, adds language to the <br />