of 12 files appearing on Attachment D to Mr. Trautman's July 27, 2015 submittal) contain <br />colored highlighting that was not part of the original record. Those additions, as well as any <br />other additions, revisions or edits, should be disregarded by the commission. <br />II. Review Limited to Record <br />Eugene Code 9.7655(3) limits the Planning Commission review to evidence presented to <br />the hearings official. Mr. Trautman's July 27, 2015 submittal also contains three other <br />attachments, Attachments A, B and C. Attachment C is a copy of a LUBA decision, Butte <br />Conservancy v. City of Gresham. The commission is entitled to consider caselaw. However, the <br />copy of the case that is attached to Mr. Trautman's testimony contains highlighting, which <br />should be disregarded. Attached to this memo is a clean version of that case. Please refer to that <br />version when reviewing the case. Accordingly, the commission should determine whether Mr. <br />Trautman submitted any new evidence that should be rejected and not considered in this appeal. <br />Attachment A is an aerial photo that shows the area in question. This particular copy of <br />the aerial photo was not submitted into the record during the initial proceedings before the <br />hearings official. [Note inserted text box: "PDT 13-1 Remand Testimony: Attachment A."] <br />However, a substantially similar one appears on page 895 of the LUBA Record (5th of 12 files <br />appearing on Attachment D to Mr. Trautman's July 27, 2015 submittal). A color copy of the <br />document appearing at LUBA Record 895 was included in the LUBA Record as Retained <br />Exhibit I (RE-1). However, that color exhibit is still at LUBA or the Court of Appeals and is, <br />therefore, not readily available for your review. Accordingly, for ease of reference, you may <br />refer to the color version of Attachment A to Mr. Trautman's July 27 submittal. <br />Attachment B is a drawing of the Oakleigh Lane right of way. This document was not <br />presented to the hearings official and was neither before the hearings official when he made his <br />decision nor in front of the Planning Commission when it issued its decision in this case. As <br />discussed above, opponents attempted to include a substantially similar document before LUBA. <br />See Intervenor-Petitioner Conte's Amended Petition for Review, Exhibit A (3rd of 12 files <br />appearing on Attachment D to Mr. Trautman's July 27, 2015 submittal). Upon motion by the <br />City, LUBA struck that exhibit and refused to consider it. See Page 30 of LUBA's August 21, <br />2014 Final Opinion and Order; PC Agenda Page 135. The Planning Commission should <br />likewise decline to consider this document. <br />III. Review Limited to Issues Raised in Notice of Appeal <br />Eugene Code 9.7655(3) limits the issues on appeal to those issues identified in the written <br />appeal statement. The Planning Commission will have to determine whether all of the issues <br />raised in Mr. Trautman's July 27th submittal were identified as appeal issues in the initial appeal <br />statement (PC Agenda - Pages 7-27). In particular, at the hearing, the applicant objected to Mr. <br />Trautman's additional allegation that the hearings official erred in failing to consider that a <br />portion of the paving for Oakleigh Lane lies outside the right-of-way. Applicant asserts that that <br />is a new issue that was not identified in the original appeal statement. <br />PC Agenda - Page 7 <br />