Eugene Planning Commission admits rebuttal evidence, debates Goal 5 mapping and Randy Lane connection during Braidwood Hills appeal

The Eugene Planning Commission on Jan. 28, 2025, considered deliberations in the appeal of a hearings official's denial of the Braidwood Hills tentative plan unit development and subdivision application and acted to reject certain late testimony while admitting rebuttal materials submitted in a second open-record period.

The commission unanimously approved a motion to "reject and not consider the testimony identified in items 1 through 9 on pages 8 through 11 of the packet," a staff-recommended list of late materials that staff labeled as new evidence outside the scope of the appeal. Commissioner Edwards moved to adopt the staff recommendation; the motion passed unanimously among commissioners present.

The commission then began line-by-line deliberations on the appeal issues raised by the applicant. Staff and the city attorney repeatedly reminded commissioners that, because this is a quasi-judicial appeal, the commission must limit itself to (a) the issues raised by the appellant and (b) evidence that was properly before the hearings official or shown to be responsive rebuttal evidence. "New evidence before the planning commission is not okay," said Lauren Summers, assistant city attorney, describing statutory limits on evidence and argument in appeals.

Staff and the applicant disputed whether multiple documents and analyses submitted in the second open-record period should have been rejected by the hearings official. Nick Gioiello, a city planner leading the presentation, summarized staff's view that some materials submitted in August 2024 were responsive rebuttal evidence to referral comments and therefore should be considered. A straw poll of commissioners indicated support for reversing the hearings official's rejection of that evidence.

The commission then addressed whether the entire Braidwood Hills site is included on the city's acknowledged Goal 5 scenic-sites inventory (the Scenic Sites Working Paper and its Figure H-2). Staff contended the Figure H-2 map is part of the acknowledged inventory and that the property is shown on the…