Eugene Planning Commission <br />July 24, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />to prepare and submit their case and a full and fair hearing.") Accordingly, <br />remand is required." PC Agenda - page 168. <br />LUBA held that the procedural notification error resulted in the denial of Mr. Trautman's right to <br />prepare and submit his case and to a full and fair hearing. Accordingly, it is that specific error <br />that must be remedied on remand. <br />LUBA has determined that on remand, a local government need not follow all of the <br />procedures that are required by the local code for the initial hearing. Richards-Kreitzberg v. <br />Marion County, 32 Or LUBA 76 (1996). What action(s) the local government must take are <br />highly dependent on the facts of the case, the language of the LUBA remand, and the nature of <br />the remand. A local government must conduct whatever additional proceedings may be <br />necessary to allow it to correct errors in the original decision. Along that same vein, a local <br />government may limit the scope of a remand proceeding to correcting the deficiencies that were <br />the basis for LUBA's remand. CCCOG v. Columbia County, 44 Or LUBA 438 (2003). . <br />Following LUBA's remand decision in this case, the City provided Trautman with notice <br />of the Hearings Official's November 12, 2013 decision. The notice provided him a period of <br />time to file his own local appeal, which Mr. Trautman did not avail himself of. See attached <br />notice. Accordingly, this appeal hearing was scheduled to provide Mr. Trautman an opportunity <br />to testify based on the original notice of appeal that was filed on November 22, 2013. PC <br />Agenda - pages 7-27. <br />If he had been notified of the 2013 hearings official decision, and if he had chosen to <br />testify at the initial Planning Commission appeal hearing, Mr. Trautman would have been able to <br />testify on any issues that were raised in the local notice of appeal. Accordingly, in order to <br />provide Mr. Trautman an opportunity to a full and fair hearing, i. e., the same as if he had been <br />correctly notified in 2013, he must be allowed to testify on any of the issues raised in that notice <br />of appeal. <br />An appeal hearing, however, is generally limited to the record that was prepared before <br />the original decision maker, in this case the Hearings Official. See EC 9.7650. Accordingly, Mr. <br />Trautman should not provide any new "evidence" that was not before the Hearings Official. He <br />may testify orally and/or in writing and present argument based on the evidence that is already in <br />the record. <br />Following any oral testimony by Mr. Trautman, the applicant will have a final <br />opportunity to rebut. See Notice of Hearing (PC Agenda - page 5). However, in this appeal <br />hearing, there is no requirement that the Planning Commission grant a request to leave the record <br />open. That requirement applies only to the initial evidentiary hearing, which was the October 2, <br />2013 hearing of the Hearings Official. If a request to leave the record open is made, the Planning <br />Commission may deny such request. Following the applicant's final rebuttal, the public hearing <br />and record should be closed. <br />City of Eugene • 125 E. 8th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-8447 • 541-682-5414 Fax <br />www.eugene-or.gov <br />{00173489;1} <br />