Appeal Materials 2024-09-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2024 Page 6 tree preservation standard, which depends on that unclear status; in sorting out the confusion, the City should stick with Figure H-2, as the City and LUBA have done for decades. (3) Secondary Access under EC 9.6815(2)(b) and parking. The HO erred when, at Decision 23 para 2, she based a finding of compliance with the secondary emergency access standard on a condition prohibiting any parking on the streets with 21-foot paving. This condition is unrelated to the secondary access standard; it is a discretionary condition; hence it is not a lawful condition. Olson Memorial Clinic v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 418 (1991). More importantly, the Fire Marshal’s “strong” recommendation to prohibit on-street parking was not made until the day of the hearing; hence it did not get careful review by planning staff in advance. City “Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways” (1999), at page 35 Table 2, allows parking on one side of a local street with a 21- foot wide pavement width. That is the situation here. The HO and Planning Commission may not impose the suggested condition limiting parking. (4) Exception to connectivity of Randy Lane under EC 9.6815(2)(h). The HO erred when, at Decision 24-26, she refused to consider applicant’s August 14 evidence rebutting Public Works First Open Record evidence (July 31) that the applicant had not justified an exception allowed under EC 9.6815(2)(h) to connecting Randy Lane. The HO rejected this as a submission of “new evidence into the record AFTER the record was closed to new evidence” on July 31. Decision at 25 para 4, emphasis original. She characterized the applicant’s submission of new evidence as a demand for an ORS 197.522 amendment on the fly. The evidence submitted in the second open record period (August 14) was an engineer’s graphic and narrative showing the Randy Lane connection could not be made consistent with the city’s 20% grade limitation, thus meeting the EC 9.6815(2)(h)2 standard relating to street design. The road cannot be connected as the topography is too steep. The Applicant has demonstrated the right to an exception. Furthermore, the applicant’s August 14 submission was not under the authority of an ORS 197.522 proceeding to amend the application including with new evidence. The evidence submitted did not change the application. It simply rebutted the Public Works evidence, submitted for the first time 21 days after the hearing, that applicant had failed to submit evidence that justified an exception to making a connection. Under state law (ORS 197.797(6)(c)), the applicant was entitled to rebut the new position with new evidence. The city’s June 10 notice of post hearing procedures confirmed that right, as discussed in Issue (1) above. The applicant has been candid throughout that it intends to use ORS 197.522 as needed to get an approval, but it did not rely on that right to submit the August 14 rebuttal evidence that the HO rejected. This evidentiary issue needs to be kept in perspective. The original application requested an exception to connecting Randy Lane under EC 9.6815(2)(h), citing the development prohibition