. <br />r <br />1 <br />:y <br />01. <br />PORTLAND OFFICE <br />,I rr r.h n~a ~~r. <br />t ATTACHMENTE <br />_ <br />t ll•Irrlr ,rt r.,,l <br />II PI~I,I ,:hilr r, <br />px, <br />- <br />1_rl .<ur inurri.cnn all cr. 1. <br />uern )ull.. rlrn ruck <br />z,y <br />r <br />} <br /> <br />pulllnnd. <br />nrr~nq 9;3171-3/~1 <br />,Earrlr <br />'rr <br />•r <br />,hin«!un <br />. <br />1 <br />_ <br />. <br /> <br />l <br />2 <br />. <br />, <br />. <br />. <br />TEl <br />8 il <br />.}J FAX 511.3 j <br />6 <br />I)) y <br />Il e, 1, in ~•(rl ll, rt.l'- <br />y <br />Xw ' <br />- <br />_ ey <br />w <br />r: <br />qw <br />Please reply to WILLIAM K. KABEISEMAN <br />billkab@gsblaw. corn <br />Direct Dial 503 553 3231 <br />August 11, 2015 <br />VIA EMAIL - anne.c.dayies@ei.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 />168 <br />