4-26-17 <br />Applicant <br />Comments regarding emergency response, the transportation system, and public <br />facilities. Attachments include new engineer letter from Access Engineering, LLC. <br />4-26-17 <br />Bryn Thorns <br />Comments regarding paving width of Oakleigh Lane, and stating disagreement with <br />' <br />" <br />" <br />Public Works <br />comment that the configuration of Oakleigh Lane is <br />common <br />in Eugene. <br />4-26-17 <br />Paul Conte <br />Comments regarding mandatory approval criteria, clarifications regarding Nemariam <br />report, and clarification of the applicable roadway standards. <br />4-26-17 <br />Sandy Thorns <br />Comments and attachments regarding the right-of-way width, paving width, and vehicle <br />parking on Oakleigh Lane. <br />Final Open Record Period (Final Argument) <br />Closed on May 3, 2017; only the applicant could submit written argument (not evidence) that directly <br />responded to testimony received during the first and second open-record periods. In the final open <br />record period, the applicant submitted final argument, dated May 3, 2017. A copy of the applicant's <br />final argument has been provided to the Planning Commission. <br />Items in the Record Below <br />The Planning Commission must consider the entire record for the applicant's tentative PUD application <br />(PDT 13-1), back to 2013. To review the entire record related to this application, see <br />http://Pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=PDT-13-0001 <br />If any Commissioner has difficultly locating something in the record, please contact Erik Berg-Johansen. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW ROLE <br />Based on procedural requirements set forth in the Eugene Code (see EC 9.7655), the Planning <br />Commission would consider only those appeal issues set out in the original appeal statement. <br />However, because the Planning Commission reopened the record in 2015, Oregon law requires the <br />Planning Commission to also consider "new issues which relate to the new evidence, arguments, <br />testimony or criteria for decision-making which apply to the matter at issue." The issues for Planning <br />Commission consideration, as identified by Planning staff, are set out in Attachment B. Further, in <br />addressing these issues, the Planning Commission limits its consideration to the established evidentiary <br />record, which is discussed above. <br />In this case, the Planning Commission's role on remand is to consider the evidence and argument in <br />the record, including the new evidence and argument submitted during the most recent open record <br />period, and decide whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the Hearings Official's decision on the <br />tentative PUD application. <br />In the event that the Planning Commission finds the new evidence and testimony submitted in the <br />recent open record period does not alter the Commission's previous decision to affirm the Hearings <br />Official's approval of the application, the Planning Commission may simply adopt its previous decision <br />along with supplemental findings in support of that affirmation. If the Planning Commission decides to <br />reverse the Hearings Official's decision and deny the application, the Planning Commission is required <br />to provide specific findings of fact as to why the application does not meet the applicable approval <br />criteria. <br />Page 4 <br />Page 4 <br />