PORTLAND OFFICE <br />elenenih floor <br />121 sm morrinnn slreei <br />pnriland. oregnn 9 7 204-31 4 1 . <br />TEL .50.3 228 .39.39 FAx 503 226 0259 <br />anchornge, aln..ka <br />beijing, rhion <br />new. I-rk, new lork <br />seaifle, wa.shinginn <br />washingion, d.c. <br />GSBLAW.COM <br />Please reply to WILLIAM K. KABEISEMAN <br />billkab@gsblaw.com <br />DIRECT DIAL 503 553 3231 <br />December 5, 2013 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />Eugene Planning Division <br />99 West 10th Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: Appeal of Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing Planned Unit Development and Willamette <br />Greenway Review <br />Dear Chair Randall and Commissioners: <br />This firm represents Bryn Thorns in this matter; please accept this letter into the record and <br />consider it before making your final decision. Please also provide me with a copy of your final decision. <br />We urge the Planning Commission to reject the decision of the hearings official. The Planning <br />Commission could reject the decision for any number of reasons, most of which will be detailed for the <br />Commission in its hearing today. This letter will not address all of those issues; instead, it will focus on <br />several fundamental flaws related to the safety of the transportation system. The key issue for the <br />Planning Commission is whether the hearings official's decision is internally consistent and whether the <br />applicant has shown compliance with all required aspects of the code. <br />The most significant concern is the hearings official's inconsistency regarding the safety of the <br />proposed transportation system. LUBA has held that findings must be internally consistent, see, e.g., <br />Doob v. Josephine Counry, 27 Or LUBA 293 (1994) (inconsistent findings regarding different approval <br />standards undermine a decision's adequacy). In this case, the Hearings Official made directly contrary <br />findings in evaluating the proposed transportation system. <br />In evaluating the constitutional basis for exacting property for the area that extends Oakleigh <br />Lane, the hearings official specifically found that the City's minimum street standards are required to <br />provide safe access: <br />"without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the City's <br />minimum street design standards and the 168 new vehicle trips generated by the <br />proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated <br />by the proposed development, will not be assured of safe access via Oakleigh Lane. " <br />Page 22 of HO's decision (emphasis added). <br />231 <br />