<br /> <br /> 18 <br /> <br />demonstrate compliance with the EC 9.6815(2)(h) exceptions, while also providing both the City and <br />the public an opportunity to review and evaluate the evidence. <br /> <br />Summary of Applicant’s Argument <br />The applicant asserts that the Hearings Official erred by rejecting the applicant’s August 14, 2024, <br />evidence rebutting Public Works First Open Record evidence (dated July 31, 2024) that indicated the <br />applicant had not justified an exception under EC 9.6815(2)(h) to the requirement to connect the <br />proposed extension of Randy Lane to the existing terminus of Randy Lane to the east of the <br />development. <br /> <br />The originally submitted application materials requested an exception to the requirement to <br />connect Randy Lane, citing the prohibition on development above 901 feet in EC 9.8325(8). The July <br />Staff Report indicated support for this exception. However, the City’s Memorandum submitted into <br />the record on July 31, 2024, revised the findings at EC 9.6815(2)(a) and (b) Street Connectivity <br />Standards, and added a recommended condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit <br />updated application materials demonstrating that an exception is warranted for Randy Lane under <br />one of the bases articulated in EC 9.6815(2)(h). Alternatively, the applicant could submit for an <br />Adjustment Review under EC 9.6815(2)(i). <br /> <br />The applicant notes that the City’s written notice given on July 10, 2024, stated the second open <br />record period is for: “[w]ritten testimony (evidence and argument) that directly responds to <br />testimony received during the first open record period.” The notice given matches state law – ORS <br />197.797(6)(c). <br /> <br />The applicant argues that the applicant’s August 14, 2024, submission was not under the authority <br />of an ORS 197.522 proceeding to amend the application with new evidence. The evidence submitted <br />did not change the application, but rather responded to the Public Works revised findings, that the <br />applicant had failed to submit evidence to justify an exception to making a street connection. Under <br />State law (ORS 197.797(6)(c)), the applicant is entitled to rebut the new position with new evidence. <br /> <br />Staff Response <br />There are three considerations to take note of within this appeal issue: (1) Did the applicant actually <br />invoke their rights under ORS 197.522; (2) should the applicant’s materials submitted on August 14, <br />2024 be considered part of the record for review; and (3) did the applicant’s response to EC 9.6815 <br />within the August 14, 2024 evidence provide sufficient response to warrant an exception to the <br />street connectivity standards under EC 9.6815(2)(h) to not require the connection of two sections of <br />Randy Lane. <br /> <br />Regarding the first consideration, as explained in detail in response to applicant’s first appeal issue, <br />staff agrees that the applicant did not intend to invoke the applicant’s right to amend the <br />application pursuant to ORS 197.522, and the Hearings Official erred by so finding. Although the <br />applicant’s materials could have been more clearly written, it appears that the applicant did not <br />intend to invoke ORS 197.522 or amend the application. <br /> <br />Regarding the second consideration, as discussed in more detail in response to Appeal Issue #1, the <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 20 of 159