at least one neighbor who submitted written testimony to the HO did not receive notice of the HO <br />decision or notice of the PC appeal hearing. The matter was sent back to the City to allow Simon <br />Trautman to testify before the PC. <br />On remand, the PC held a hearing at which Simon Trautman, the applicant and their respective <br />representatives were provided the opportunity to testify. Mr. Trautman's testimony raised a question <br />with regard to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using Oakleigh Lane, and the lack of sufficient <br />available paving width for emergency vehicle access for the full length of Oakleigh Lane. The PC <br />opened the record to Mr. Trautman, the applicant, and their respective representatives for submittal <br />of evidence related to the paving width of Oakleigh Lane. During the open record period, Mr. Trautman <br />and the applicant submitted evidence related to the paving width issue. Several other individuals also <br />attempted to submit evidence and comments. <br />The PC deliberated on the appeal issues at its meetings on August 17th and September 28th, and <br />reached its final decision on October 5, 2015. The appeal is based on the record, as outlined below, <br />and limited to assignments of error contained in the appeal statement submitted. As described below, <br />the PC affirms the HO's decision to approve the subject application, with additional findings and <br />modifications to approval conditions in some instances. Those additional findings and modifications <br />are detailed below with respect to each related assignment of error. <br />II. RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />On remand, the PC accepted testimony from the applicant and Simon Trautman at the July 28th public <br />hearing. The record was then re-opened for the submittal of evidence limited to the paving width <br />issue described above. The PC adopts as findings the memorandum from the City Attorney dated <br />September 21, 2015 (see Attachment A), outlining the materials that the PC accepted as part of the <br />open record. The PC voted to follow the advice of the City Attorney set forth in that memorandum and <br />accepted into the record the written materials forwarded by the City Attorney. <br />The record before the PC also consists of the Eugene Planning Commission Agenda Item Summaries <br />and related attachments for the Remand Public Hearing, dated July 28, 2015; Remand Deliberations, <br />dated August 17 and September 28, 2015; Appeal of Hearings Official Decision: Oakleigh Meadows <br />(PDT 13-1) dated December 9, 2013; the written and oral testimony presented by appellants, applicant, <br />and other parties to the Planning Commission; the decision of the Eugene Hearings Official dated <br />November 12, 2013; and all record materials (including written and oral testimony, City staff reports <br />and application materials) presented to and not rejected by the HO. The entire City Planning & <br />Development Department file was physically before the PC prior to its final decision. <br />III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />After consideration of the applicable law and all argument and evidence in the record, the PC finds that <br />the subject application meets all applicable PUD approval criteria from EC 9.8320, with additional <br />findings and modified conditions of approval described below. In the event of any conflict between <br />the Hearings Official's decision and this Final Order, this Final Order shall prevail. <br />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 2 <br />