December 5, 2013 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o Becky Taylor, Associate Planner <br />City of Eugene. <br />99 West 10th Avenue, <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: City Fi le No. PDT 13-1; OakleighPUD <br />Opposition to Hearings Official Decision <br />Dear Eugene Planning Commission: <br />The following letter presents testimony supporting several of the assignments and <br />subassiganents of error presented in the Appeal Statement regarding the tentative PUD approval <br />for Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing (PDT 13-1). I am presenting information in aless formal <br />and more plain language style as a means to show the Planning Commission (PC) how the <br />Hearings Official, and some in some cases the City of Eugene, clearly erred in tentatively <br />approving this PUD. <br />If you are not fiuily up to speed on the record thus far, I would like to provide some detail about <br />my background and who I represent so that my presentation in this letter and my oral <br />presentation at the Hearing on the evening of December 5d' can be correlated and so that you <br />understand that I and the local neighborhood has put quite a bit of energy into this appeal and <br />opposition prior to the City appeals stage. <br />I represent the views of nearly 100%0 of the residents that live on.Oakleigh lane and about 70% of <br />the residents that live on McClure Lane. I am a Registered Geologist with the,Slate of Oregon <br />and I work for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in the Environmental Cleanup <br />Program. The specifics of my background do not directly relate to PUD code or detailed land <br />use issues, but I take both my professional registration and my position as a public servant very <br />seriously. Both of those commitments rely on my impartial review of evidence to make <br />determinations that can have significant affect on the citizens of Oregon. That's why 1 take my <br />job and professional certification very seriously, much like the expectation the citizens have on <br />municipal engineers and planners, land use Hearings Officials, and Planning Commissions. <br />Specifically, regarding the Hearings Official for this PUD (Mr. Ken Helm), I would like to <br />provide some feedback to the City of Eugene and the PC. 'Ibis topic may have no bearing on the: <br />judicial intricacies of the appeal, but I still think this is an important issue for fixture land use <br />decisions. In Mr. Helm's decision document he adds quite a few colorful and partial adjectives <br />to his summaries of the-opposition's -arguments which present the local neighbors as not being <br />educated or experienced enough to fi.dly understand PUD code. or land use. There is an overly <br />dismissive tone towards the neighbors in his report. I can understand that type of tone coming <br />from the applicant, which we actually saw at the Public He on October 2nd, but coming from <br />a professional representing the City, seems inappropriate. It also suggests to the public that their <br />Page 1 of 5 <br />303. <br />