<br /> <br /> 19 <br /> <br />new evidence presented by the applicant during the second open record period was intended to <br />rebut testimony submitted during the first open record period (in this case, the new proposed <br />condition of approval) and should therefore be considered by the Planning Commission as the <br />decision-maker. In the August 14, 2024, submittal, it appears the applicant was simply responding to <br />the new condition of approval introduced by staff. As responsive testimony and evidence are <br />permitted during the second open record period, these materials should have been considered as <br />part of the record and taken into consideration as part of the decision. <br /> <br />Regarding the third consideration, staff agrees with the Hearings Official’s conceptual review of the <br />satisfaction of EC 9.6815, as demonstrated by the applicant, who argued an exception is warranted <br />under EC 9.6815(2)(h). Within the Hearings Official’s decision, on page 27, the Hearings Official <br />correctly found that: <br /> <br />[I]t is certainly possible that a different configuration could potentially create a superior <br />design, the applicant’s engineers have established a credible basis for an exception under EC <br />9.8615(2)(h)(2) to compliance with the street connectivity standard in EC 9.8615(2)(b). <br /> <br />The applicant is requesting an exception to EC 9.6815(2)(b), pursuant to EC 9.6815(2)(h)2., due to <br />existing grades on site. In the submitted materials dated August 14, 2024, the applicant submitted <br />Exhibit E, an annotated graphic from KPFF Engineering that shows existing topography exceeding <br />20% slope and that a future street connection to Randy Lane at the southeast corner of the site will <br />not meet current adopted street design standards, more specifically Section 2.05(J)(4) of the City of <br />Eugene’s Public Improvement Design Standards (PIDS), as the proposed street grade would exceed <br />20%. Public works staff has reviewed this additional evidence and confirmed that based on the <br />submitted evidence, the proposed PUD should be granted an exception to the street connectivity <br />standards under EC9.6815(2)(h)2). <br /> <br />If it is found by the Planning Commission, as recommended in Appeal Issue #1, that the applicant’s <br />evidence submitted August 14, 2024, is responsive to the proposed condition of approval submitted <br />by the City on July 31, 2024, then staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify the <br />Hearings Official’s decision and find the applicant’s engineers have demonstrated a credible basis <br />for an exception under the street connectivity standards in EC 9.6815(2)(h). <br /> <br />Appeal Issues #5 and #6: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred in concluding that the applicant failed to <br />show there is no “need” for the extension of Randy Lane to be developed to public road <br />standards. The Hearings Official also erroneously rejected the applicant’s argument that the <br />demand for a public road stub is not justified under constitutional law. <br /> <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />The Hearings Official addressed these issues on pages 19 through 21 of the decision, under the <br />approval criterion at EC 9.6815(2) which states: <br /> <br />(a) All streets and alleys shall be public unless the developer demonstrates that a public <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 21 of 159