TAILOR Becky G <br />om: John B. Fenn D1 <johnfenn3@gmai1.com> <br />E <br />Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:06 AM <br />To: TAYLOR Becky G <br />Cc: Bryn Thoms; THOMS Bryn <br />Subject: Planning Commission hearing document <br />Becky- Please include the following as testimony for today's hearing on the appeal to the OMC PUD. I have <br />copied Bryn Thoms here so that he has access to my statement prior to the hearing this evening, as I am not able <br />to attend due to a work commitment: - <br />Oakleigh Lane is a narrow (1.5 lane) access street less than .25 miles long. As a resident who lives on the far <br />west end of the street, close to the intersection with River Road and the small commercial parking lot on the SE <br />comer of that intersection, I am keenly aware of the flow of tafic (pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle) up <br />and down the street. I am also keenly aware of the safety issues presented to my family (wife and two children) <br />as well as that of the rest of the community. Of primary concern in this regard when it comes to the Hearing <br />Official's decision on the Oakleigh Meadows Cohousing PUD application are the second and third assignment <br />of errors in appeal document filed by neighbors on Oakleigh and McClure. <br />In the second assignment of errors, it is noted that the HO decision does not account for future development <br />opportunities related to adjacent properties (e.g. Tax Lot 200) with regards to maintaining safety and the <br />-otection of "health, safety, and general welfare of the public" (EC 9.0020). -More specifically, the HO decision <br />_oes not adhere to PUD code section EC 9.8670 with regards to the necessity for a Traffic Impact Analysis. <br />Increasing the population of a small street like Oakleigh by over 100% will most certainly. increase the range <br />and volume of automobile traffic-from personal vehicles to service vehicles and emergency vehicles-as well <br />as pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and "international standards" related to thresholds of vehicular trips do not <br />sufficiently address the immediate concerns around safety hazards (including increased probability of - <br />incidents). <br />The third assignment of error refers to PUD code EC 9.8320(6), noting overall that the HO's decision does not <br />adhere to elements of the code put in place by the City of Eugene to ensure that all neighborhood residents and <br />community members can be guaranteed sufficient protection of "public health and safety" in a wide range of <br />matters. The second assignment of errors definitely overlaps with this third one, but more specifically the HO <br />appeared to disregard a Public Works Department statement that the PUD did not adequately provide for <br />sufficient space for emergency response and access-a serious risk for all neighbors on Oakleigh and-users of <br />adjacent public space. <br />In general, the HO decision appears to only concern the potential/future residents of the PUD property, not <br />accounting for the vast majority of extant residents on the street (Oakleigh) when it comes to their safety as <br />vehicle users, cyclists, and/or pedestrians; that is, his focus attends only to the boundaries of the PUD property <br />and not down the entire street, which is only 988 feet long, but along which ALL current residents must travel <br />WEST to River Road whether -on foot, bicycle, or car in order to utilize existing PUBLIC transportation <br />infrastructure. This exiremely narrow focus on the PUD property a the locus of concern in the HO's decision <br />r '-,es a great disservice to current residents of the street. <br />249. <br />