New Search
Stewart Road Closure <br />May 10, 1999. <br />Page 4 <br />98-17 had not been promulgated in accordance with applicable provisions of the <br />Eugene Code. The hearings officer order repealed the administrative order. After the <br />administrative order was repealed, the City of Eugene reconsidered the decision to <br />close Stewart Road. The City of Eugene obtained an opinion from the City Attorney <br />interpreting Eugene Code section 5.055 with regard to the nature of the review for <br />determination of whether a street should be closed. Anew administrative order was <br />issued, maintaining the closure of Stewart Road. <br />Discussion <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 Stewart 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 City did not reopen Stewart Road. Under the Eugene Code the hearings officer's <br />decision does not take immediate effect. The Code provides that sufficient time pass to <br />allow for the Council's review of the decision. Within that time the City reconsidered the <br />decision 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 />that the City had not followed the process required by the Eugene Code. The Eugene <br />Code does not require that the City provide notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to <br />the City making a decision concerning a road closure or similar administrative decision <br />under Eugene Code Chapter 5. The Code similarly does not prohibit the City from <br />reconsidering an administrative order and, after correcting the errors of the first decision, <br />making 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 />obtained a City Attorney's opinion which concluded, in part, that the hearings officer's <br />articulation 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 appeal the hearings officer's decision without following the process outlined in the <br />code, then the City's action was inappropriate. Since the City could reconsider its earlier <br />decision in the light of the hearings officer's decision, the request for a City Attorney's <br />opinion should be considered a part of that legitimate process rather than an inappropriate <br />attempt to circumvent the defined review and appeal process. <br />The substance of the City Attorney's opinion illustrates the difficulty of <br />discussing and articulating a standard of review, especially when that is being considered <br />out of the context of an individual decision. However the question is being articulated, <br />the standard set by Eugene Code 5.055 seems clear. If the City decides for reasons other <br />