notice for the 2015 hearing explained that: <br />The Planning Commission would accept testimony only from the development applicant and <br />from Mr. Trautman. Other people could not provide testimony to the Planning Commission. <br />The Planning Commission would base its decision on the evidence submitted into the record <br />during the 2013 process; it would accept only arguments from the applicant and Mr. Trautman, <br />and would reject any new evidence about the proposal. <br />During the deliberations that followed the 2015 hearing, the Planning Commission decided to proceed <br />differently than described in the 2015 hearing notice. Mr. Trautman's testimony raised concerns with <br />regard to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using Oakleigh Lane, and the lack of sufficient available <br />paving width for emergency vehicle access for the full length of Oakleigh Lane. The Planning <br />Commission wanted more information about these concerns and decided to re-open the record to <br />accept additional written evidence (not only arguments as the notice had explained) pertaining to the <br />safety of the access to the development site in terms of: (1) the right-of-way width of Oakleigh Lane; <br />(2) the pavement width of Oakleigh Lane; and (3) parking on Oakleigh Lane. The City did not send a <br />new notice to inform interested parties of the re-opened record. Then, the Planning Commission <br />accepted written testimony submitted during the open record period from, not only the applicant and <br />Mr. Trautman, but also from several other individuals. <br />With this additional information, the PC deliberated on the ten appeal issues at its meetings on August <br />17th and September 281h, and reached its final decision on October 5, 2015. The Planning Commission, <br />again, approved the development application. <br />The Planning Commission's 2015 approval was then appealed through the Oregon court system. <br />Because the Court of Appeals found that the City should have sent notice and provided an opportunity <br />for any interested party to provide written testimony during the 2015 re-opened record period, the <br />Court remanded the application again. This 2017 decision is the City's response to that second remand. <br />The purpose of the 2017 remand process was to give notice to all interested parties of the same <br />opportunity as was given in 2015, when the Planning Commission re-opened the record. Specifically, <br />this 2017 process provided a noticed opportunity to submit new evidence and testimony related to the <br />safety of Oakleigh Lane, specifically: (1) the right-of-way width of Oakleigh Lane; (2) the pavement <br />width of Oakleigh Lane; and (3) parking on Oakleigh Lane. The PC deliberated on eleven issues' at its <br />meetings on May 22nd and May 30th, and reached its final decision on June 5, 2017. <br />As described below, with this 2017 Final Order, the PC affirms the HO's 2013 decision with <br />modifications. The PC's decision is detailed below with respect to each assignment of error. <br />The Planning Commission addressed each of the ten assignments of error listed in the November 22, 2013 <br />appeal statement. Also, to address the requirement of ORS 197.763(7) which applies because the Planning <br />Commission reopened the record, the Planning Commission considered new issues that relate to the new <br />evidence, arguments, testimony or criteria raised during the re-opened record period. Based on staff's review <br />of the materials submitted in 2017, one additional assignment of error was identified: "The Hearings Official <br />Erred by failing to correctly assess the lack of adequate fire and emergency services available to the proposed <br />PUD site, as required under EC 9.8320(7)." It is addressed as the eleventh assignment of error, below. <br />2017 Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 2 <br />