rps, G R. R V E Y S C H U S E R T R n R E R <br />-J <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />August 11, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />Finally, even if the Planning Commission were to decide to reject a portion of Mr. Trautman's testimony <br />related to these three issues, the Planning Commission still has the authority and responsibility to <br />consider the fact that a substantial portion of Oakleigh Lane's pavement is on private property when it <br />evaluates the application's compliance with EC 9.8320(5), (6) and (I 1)(b). Specifically, EC 9.7650 <br />provides this Commission with authority to consider all facts in the record in their review: <br />The appeal of an initial hearings official or historic review board decision provides for a <br />review of a quasi-judicial decision by a higher review authority specified in this land use <br />code. In general, the appeal procedures allow for a review of the original application, <br />the hearings official or historic review board decision, the appeal application, and any <br />facts or testimony relating to issues and materials that were submitted before or during <br />the initial quasi-judicial public hearing process. The hearings official or historic review <br />board decision may be affirmed, reversed, modified, or remanded by the planning <br />commission. (Emphasis added.) <br />Under that provision, the Planning Commission can consider "any facts or testimony relating to issues <br />and materials" that were submitted during the process before the hearings official. In other words, the <br />Planning Commission is not prohibited from correcting an egregious error made by the hearings official <br />regarding the application's compliance with the approval criteria in EC 9.8320(5), (6) and (I 1)(b), even <br />if the Appeal Statement itself didn't call out a particular piece of evidence that was presented to the <br />hearings official. <br />This principle may be more clearly understood by considering that the Planning Commission could, and <br />would have to, consider the fact that a substantial portion of paving is on private property if one of the <br />commissioners had been the person who brought that fact to the attention of the other commissioners <br />during your deliberations. Now that Mr. Trautman's arguments have ensured that the deficiency in the <br />width of the pavement that's in the public right-of-way is no longer overlooked, the Planning <br />Commission would err if it ignored that critical fact in its findings. <br />I look forward to the Commission's decision on this matter. <br />Very truly(ours, <br />William K. Kabeiseman <br />WKK:dw <br />cc: Simon Trautman <br />G S B : 7249198.1 138321.01200] <br />51 <br />I <br />i <br />i <br />