DELIBERATIONS ON REMAND <br />Below is a brief outline of staff's recommended approach to deliberations now that the public <br />hearing and record is closed: <br />Task #1: Determine What Items in the Trautman Testimony Should be Allowed or <br />Otherwise Rejected as inadmissible New Evidence. <br />As an initial matter prior to deliberations, the Planning Commission will need to determine <br />what items in the Trautman testimony should be allowed, or otherwise rejected as inadmissible <br />new evidence. The attached City Attorney memo provides a guide to assist the commission in <br />making those initial determinations. <br />Task #2: Consider the Trautman Testimony and Determine Whether They Warrant <br />Changes to the Planning Commission's Findings or Decision on Appeal. <br />The Planning Commission affirmed the Hearing's Official's approval of the PUD on appeal, with <br />a number of conditions, including the condition of approval regarding landscape screening on <br />the eastern boundary of the property (i.e. in essence, modifying the Hearings Official's decision <br />to omit the requirement he made for landscape screening along that boundary). LUBA then <br />affirmed that decision on all issues except for the landscape screening condition of approval. <br />The Planning Commission must now consider the new testimony presented by Mr. Trautman <br />(particularly the arguments raised about transportation and street improvements, adequacy of <br />Oakleigh Lane for access, etc.) and determine whether that testimony changes any of the <br />findings previously adopted with regard to the application when the commission first heard the <br />appeal. The Planning Commission may choose to confirm its previous findings, or it may adopt <br />revised findings based on Mr. Trautman's new testimony. <br />For ease of reference, staff directs the Planning Commission's attention to a few key areas in <br />the record that address the approval criteria related to Mr. Trautman's appeal arguments, and <br />include previous findings made, affirming compliance with those relevant approval criteria by <br />all three decision-makers including the Hearings Official, Planning Commission and LUBA. <br />These materials are also included as attachments to the public hearing AIS dated July 28, 2015: <br />Hearings Official (HO) Decision <br />• EC 9.8320(5) regarding safe and adequate transportation systems: see HO Decision at <br />Pages 18-29 (July 28th PC Agenda Packet, Pages 47-58). <br />• EC 9.8320(6) regarding risk to public safety: see HO Decision at Pages 29-31 (July 28th PC <br />Packet Pages 58-60). <br />• EC 9.8320(11)(b) regarding applicable street standards: see HO Decision at Pages 37-38 <br />(July 28th PC Packet Pages 66-67). <br />PC Agenda - Page 2 <br />