New Search
C Stewart Road Closure <br /> May 10, 1999 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 98- 7 had not been promulgated in accordance with applicable provisions of the <br /> Eu ene Code. The hearings officer order repealed the administrative order. After the <br /> ~I I ad inistrative order was repealed, the City of Eugene reconsidered the decision to <br /> j I clo e Stewart Road. The City of Eugene obtained an opinion from the City Attorney <br /> int rpreting Eugene Code section 5.055 with regard to the nature of the review for <br /> 'I det rmination of whether a street should be closed. Anew administrative order was <br /> j i iss ed, maintaining the closure of Stewart Road. <br /> Discus ion <br /> 1. Procedural issues: <br /> a. Maintaining the Closure <br /> The appellants objected to the City's procedure in making a second decision that <br /> kept St wart Road closed after the hearings official's initial decision.-- <br /> After the hearings officer's initial reversal of the City's decision on Stewart Road, <br /> the Cit did not reopen Stewart Road. Under the Eugene Code the hearings officer's <br /> decisio does not take immediate effect. The Code provides that sufficient time pass to <br /> allow r the Council's review of the decision. Within that time the City reconsidered the <br /> decisio and reissued a new decision with the same effect. <br /> The Eugene Code does not prohibit the City's action. The initial hearings <br /> officer s decision did not decide that Stewart Road could not be closed, it merely decided <br /> <br /> ~r that th City had not followed the process required by the Eugene Code. The Eugene <br /> Code oes not require that the City provide notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to <br /> the Cit making a decision concerning a road closure or similar administrative decision <br /> under ugene Code Chapter 5. The Code similarly does not prohibit the City from <br /> recons'dering an administrative order and, after correcting the errors of the first decision, <br /> makin a second decision that has the same result. <br /> b. City Attorney's opinion <br /> Appellants objected because, after the initial hearings officer's decision, the City <br /> obtain d a City Attorney's opinion which concluded, in part, that the hearings officer's <br /> articul tion of the standard for the first administrative decision was not correct. This <br /> served as one of the reasons for the City's decision to reconsider and keep Stewart Road <br /> closed. If the request for a City Attorney opinion was a means whereby the City sought <br /> to app al the hearings officer's decision without following the process outlined in the <br /> code, t en the City's action was inappropriate. Since the City could reconsider its earlier <br /> decisi n in the light of the hearings officer's decision, the request for a City Attorney's <br /> opinio should be considered a part of that legitimate process rather than an inappropriate <br /> attemp to circumvent the defined review and appeal process. <br /> The substance of the City Attorney's opinion illustrates the difficulty of <br /> discus ing and articulating a standard of review, especially when that is being considered <br /> out of he context of an individual decision. However the question is being articulated, <br /> the sta dard set by Eugene Code 5.055 seems clear. If the City decides for reasons other <br /> i <br /> <br />