Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 17, 2024 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />above 901 feet as the killer of connectivity, as was done in the Round 1 decision. That request <br />has support in Public Works completeness review comments, in the pre-hearing staff report, and <br />through the hearing on July 10. Only in the first open record period on July 31 did Public Works <br />change course and say the request was not supported by relevant evidence. Under the HO’s view <br />of the process, the applicant would not have any opportunity to respond to the Public Works <br />changed position. In other life contexts this could be seen as sandbagging. The Commission <br />should find that the evidentiary submission was simply rebuttal evidence allowed by the statute <br />and the city’s July 10 notice of post-hearing procedures. <br /> <br />(5) Requirement for public rather than private road extension for the west stub of <br />Randy Lane, EC 9.6815(2)(a). <br /> <br />The HO erred in concluding that the applicant failed to show there is no “need” for the extension <br />of Randy Lane to be developed to public road standards. Decision 19-21. That showing was <br />plainly made by the applicant’s August 14 rebuttal evidence, which was erroneously excluded. <br />See page 14 and Ex. E thereto, Engineer Graphics, Randy Lane Connectivity. <br /> <br />As the HO correctly pointed out at page 19, EC 9.6815(2)(a) says “[a]ll streets shall be public <br />unless the developer demonstrates that a public street or alley is not necessary for compliance <br />with this land use code or the street connectivity standards of subparagraphs (b) through (f).” <br /> <br />The relevant connectivity standard is EC 9.6815(2)(b) – calling for “street connections in the <br />direction of all existing or planned streets within 1/4 mile of the development site.” Decision 19. <br />In this instance there is no need for the street to be public and meet public standards because the <br />applicant showed, with its engineer’s rebuttal evidence, that an exception to connectivity is <br />justified under EC 9.6815(2)(g)2.a. due to the topography; it is too steep to meet the city’s 20% <br />grade standard for roads. In short, there is no need for a public road because connectivity can’t <br />be established to the eastern stub of Randy Lane due to the topography. <br /> <br />The HO rejected evidence making this showing as a request to “amend the application” and <br />introduce “new evidence AFTER the record was closed.” Decision 25, emphasis original. <br />Evidence that the topography precludes an extension was not a modification. It was simply <br />rebuttal evidence to the Public Works testimony, raised for the first time after the hearing, that <br />the exception to connectivity is justified. As discussed at the outset above, the HO should have <br />admitted this rebuttal evidence, found the exception justified, and agreed that the applicant <br />showed that the Randy Lane stub did not need to be a public street. <br /> <br />No one has suggested that a public road is needed to comply with any other zoning code <br />standard. <br /> <br />(6) Failure to justify exaction associated with “public” road stub for Randy Lane. <br /> <br />The HO erroneously rejected the Applicant’s argument that that the demand for a public road <br />stub is also not justified under constitutional law. Decision 20-21. If the requested exception to <br />connectivity due to topography is justified, then the demand for a public street (or a waiver of