Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 17, 2024 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />In the applicant’s view, one efficient way to approach the issues would be to: <br /> <br />• Agree with the applicant that it has not yet asked to trigger an ORS 197.522 proceeding; <br />(See Issue 1 below) <br /> <br />• Agree with applicant that all its evidence submitted in the second open record period <br />(August 14) may properly come in as rebuttal evidence to what was submitted by others <br />in the first open record period (July 31), consistent with the notice given to parties on <br />July 10 and as allowed by state law; (See Issue 1 below) <br /> <br />• Determine, consistent with LUBA caselaw, the staff report, and decades of city precedent <br />that Figure H-2 is the acknowledged Map of Scenic Sites in the South Hills, and this site <br />is on it; (See Issues 2 and 7 below) <br /> <br />• Reject the Public Works request, made after the public hearing, that the proposed Randy <br />Lane stub be a public road instead of private. Applicant’s rebuttal evidence to the public <br />road request supports an “exception” to connectivity of Randy Lane based on steep <br />topography, rather than the 901-foot development prohibition. Proving up on that <br />exception supports a finding that public road status is not needed; a private road will do. <br />(See Issues 5 and 6 below) <br /> <br />• Apply standards from Table 2 on page 35 of the “Design Standards and Guidelines for <br />Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways” (1999) to correct the HO’s <br />condition prohibiting any parking on the streets with a 21-foot wide paving width as <br />“recommended” by the Fire Marshal. (This last minute request by the Fire Marshall did <br />not get the attention it deserved from Planning staff.) The city design standards allow <br />parking on one side of a street with a 21-foot paving width. The city design standards <br />control over the Fire Marshal’s “recommendation.” (See Issue 3 below) <br /> <br />• Request from the City Attorney a proper construction of the Middle Housing Statute and <br />its relation to the 901-foot development prohibition in the /PD overlay zone by applying <br />the mandatory methodology stated in PGE and Gaines. The applicant provided one in its <br />second open record submittal (August 14). Attached; see point 1. Neither the HO nor the <br />staff has done one, yet, and neither has critiqued the applicant’s analysis. That analysis is <br />the basis for determining whether the /PD overlay may be applied to defeat Middle <br />Housing rights on the two acres above the 901-foot elevation. (See Issue 9 below) <br /> <br />• Resolve the remaining issues turns on how the issues above are resolved: <br /> <br />• If the Commission determines the Randy Lane stub must be public, then a condition <br />can be applied to adjust stormwater and facilities affected. (See Issue 8 below) <br /> <br />• If the Commission determines that the /PD overlay standards supersede Middle <br />Housing rights, then the 901-foot development prohibition can be applied by <br />condition. (See Issue 9 below)