ATTACHMENT E <br />PORTLAND OFFICE <br />rlrt~n,allt ll- onr <br />127 sto )n1,)IISnit e-!reel. <br />poItIli nd, o;oton 11 201-3lll <br />TEL ? 28 r.,x $0;; 22o 0 .,Q <br />O li, hor,ig". Isla Ki. <br />bei i Ir,, r1a~It a <br />it L'71 U 1'l., ;I elf. YUrk <br />ealtlI, . if~I,b ,on <br />w(I,hinz d., - <br />Pleuse reply to WILLIAM K. KABEISEMAN <br />billkab@gsb1ow. corn <br />Direct Dial 503 553 3231 <br />August 11, 2015 <br />VIA EMAIL - anue.c.davies(alei.eugene.orms <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o Anne Davies <br />Eugene City Attorney's Office <br />125 E. 8th Ave., 2nd Fl. <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: Eugene File No. PDT 13-1; Oakleigh Meadows Remand <br />Chair Randall and Commissioners: <br />This firm represented Simon Trautman on appeal to the Court of Appeals and continues to represent him <br />on the remand to the City. I was not able to attend the hearing on July 28, 2015, but it appears that <br />several concerns were raised about the submission by my client. This letter is intended to assist the <br />commissioners in properly addressing those procedural concerns so that the City can avoid another <br />remand. <br />Prior to addressing those concerns, it is worth remembering the process that led us to this point. As <br />noted by the Court of Appeals, Mr. Trautman participated in the initial hearing before the hearings <br />official and then waited to hear what happened next. However, the City failed to provide Mr. Trautman <br />notice of the hearings official's decision, the appeal filed to this body, or this body's decision, until after <br />a LUBA appeal had been filed. Mr. Trautman intervened at LUBA, but his participation was rejected. <br />His first chance to participate in the review of the hearings official's decision was granted by the Court <br />of Appeals, which decided that the City erred in how it handled the decision and remanded the decision. <br />At that point, the City decided that the best course was to place Mr. Trautman in the same position as if <br />this were the first appeal hearing before the Planning Commission. Accordingly, for purposes of this <br />process, the Planning Commission should treat the issues as if the only thing that has occurred is the <br />hearings official's initial decision. <br />With that background, I will now turn to the concerns that were raised at the last hearing. <br />The first concern to address is whether the evidence presented to the hearings official included the fact <br />that a substantial portion of the paved surface of Oakleigh Lane is on private property. As the City <br />48 <br />