4,2/V/3 <br />Eugene Planning Commission December 4, 2013 <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 Planning Commissioners: <br />I, Sandy Thoms, urge the Planning Commission to reject the decision of the hearings <br />official f or several reasons. I urge you to take very seriously all of the evidence presented to <br />you by our attorney, Bill Kabeisman, Bryn Thoms, Paul Conte, Lauren Regan and the <br />residents of Oakleigh and McClure lanes. <br />Bill Kabeisman, Bryn Thoms, and Paul Conte will go into technical detail about why <br />the hearings official erred on many issues, but I wanted to submit a summary of my own <br />opinions on the matter. <br />1. As a home owner, driver, biker and pedestrian on Oakleigh Lane, with 2 children and a <br />husband who do the same daily, I find a huge error in the idea that Oakleigh Lane will <br />somehow be safe purely by the dedication of additional ROW on the short section of <br />Oakleigh Lane along the development's property line. All logic tells me that makes no sense <br />whatsoever! The public works department makes it,very clear that Oakleigh Lane will be <br />unsafe if it is not improved to a 45 foot ROW. Yet, somehow the dedication will make it <br />safe? Following that same logic, if we dedicate enough ROW on the entire length of <br />Oakleigh Lane for a 4 lane highway, we can put thousands of cars on it, and it will be safe? <br />Currently, Oakleigh Lane does not even meet the minimum standards set forth by the- City <br />of Eugene as an access lane, yet you are going to let this development happen which will <br />move it tip into the category of low density residential road without requiring actual <br />improvements to the entire street. This is a huge error in logic! <br />By saying that Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing COMC) will be required to. dedicate a <br />portion of the their property to make transportation safe, then it should hold true that the. <br />same-thing should be required the entire length of Oakleigh Lane, where the cars, <br />pedestrians; and bikers will actually be traveling. The Hearings Official contradicts himself <br />in saying it is required along the OMC property line, but not along the entire length of <br />Oakleigh. <br />299 <br />