Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 19 <br />Will Dixon's testimony that cars have not "blocked the road. surface for vehicles" in 15 <br />years. While Ms. Regan may engage in intermittent parking on the easement, the <br />same does not destroy the prescriptive rights of the public as daily usage is not <br />required to establish prescriptive rights. See Hay v. Stevens, 262 Or 193, 497 P2d 362 <br />(1972). Rather, where, as here, the public has established its prescriptive rights, the <br />burden falls on Ms. Regan to establish that the use was permissive. Ms. Regan's <br />continued acquiescence to the use of the improved street is not sufficient to defeat <br />prescription. Feldman v. Knapp, supra. In any case, as noted above, Ms. Regan took her <br />property subject to the rights of the public in the street, and cannot now contest, this <br />issue. <br />Accordingly, the opponents provide no basis to conclude that the PUD would <br />be an impediment to emergency response. <br />Conclusion <br />The arguments advanced by the opponents fundamentally misconstrue the <br />facts and applicable legal standards that govern the PUD development in an effort to <br />find some basis to block this proposal. However, OMC has demonstrated time-and- <br />again, that its proposal conforms to all applicable standards. Accordingly, we hereby <br />formally request that the Planning Commission affirm its prior approval on remand, <br />and once again approve this development. <br />Very truly yours, <br />HINSON COX <br />P. Mittge <br />ZPM/ gcc <br />is <br />322 <br />442 <br />