Eugene Planning Commission <br />August 16; 2015. <br />Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that even suggests how long the Oaldeigh Lane <br />paving that lies on private property has been in place. Nor has there been any mention of a <br />prescribe easement on Oakleigh Lane. So, as Davies zvell Imovs, the Planning Commission coulcl_ <br />not lawf illy use this erroneous claim by Davies,; even, if it were true. This is clearly another case <br />where Davies is improperly attempting to use misleading statements of the law and an.. <br />insinuation about the facts on the ground to tilt the Planning Conniission against considering <br />the actual facts in the record. <br />The only relevant fact that the EPC can consider is that a substantialporton of Oakleigh.Lane'is <br />outside the public right-of-way - a fact which the Hearings Official either ignored or <br />overlooked in the decision that's being appealed. <br />Finally,: even if Davies' purported fact were true, and it is not; as Davies has already explained <br />to you, no one can introduce new facts into the record unless the EPC re-opens the record to all <br />parties. <br />Davies's poor attempt to slip a false, unsubstantiated "fact' into the commissioners' <br />deliberations prejudices my (and other opponents') substantial procedural rights and will <br />ensure another remand unless the EPC. now re-opens the record for rebuttal by me and other <br />parties so that you can learn the ti-uth. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />Bryn Thoms <br />135 Oakleigli Lane <br />Eugene OR, 97404 <br />6 <br />