of the public using the same street. This includes the safety of normal use by vehicles, <br />pedestrians and bicyclists, in addition to impeding emergency vehicles. <br />As demonstrated above, there was no valid analysis of the PUD's impacts on the safety <br />of the public using Oakleigh Lane, other than the deficient analysis of the Public Works Report <br />under EC 9.8320(11)(b). <br />With a proper interpretation of EC 9.8320(5), as explained above, a finding that the PUD <br />provided a safe and adequate transportation system would be a reasonable basis in most cases <br />for a finding that the PUD would not be a significant risk to public safety from its traffic <br />impacts. However, under the Hearings Official and LUBA's restrictive interpretation of <br />EC 9.8320(5), this would not be the case because there would be no requirement to comply with <br />the city's street standards for right-of-way and paving, and there would be no requirement to <br />evaluate whether the PUD actually provided a "safe and adequate transportation system" for <br />the PUD residents and emergency vehicles using Oakleigh Lane. <br />Thus, the Planning Commission cannot justifiably ignore the EC 9.8320(6) (as well as <br />EC 9.8320(5)) requirements to evaluate and ensure the public's safety. Lacking valid evidence <br />upon which to find that the PUD's traffic impacts won't jeopardize the safety of the public using <br />Oakleigh Lane, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has not demonstrated <br />that the PUD meets the approval criterion in EC 9.8320(6). <br />Precautionary procedural objections <br />In order to preserve my appeal rights on a potential procedural error, I am objecting to the <br />Eugene Planning Commission allowing the introduction of new evidence into the record by the <br />applicant, City, a commissioner or any other party without re-opening the hearing to me and all <br />other persons who testified in the original proceedings. <br />Further, I am objecting to the Eugene Planning Commission allowing the applicant to introduce <br />any testimony into the record, other than argument in direct response to my testimony, without <br />re-opening the hearing to me and all other persons who testified in the original proceedings. <br />Conclusion <br />Based on the noncompliance with EC 9.8320(6), the Planning Commission must deny this <br />application. <br />Notwithstanding that the application must also be denied for failure to comply with <br />EC 9.8320(5) and EC 9.8320(11)(b), any approval of the application must include at least the <br />following conditions: <br />1) A condition that, prior to final PUD approval, the applicant must show on final plat <br />documents a 45-foot wide right-of-way along the 50-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane adjacent <br />to the subject property, dedicated to the City of Eugene or Lane County.22 <br />2) A condition that, prior to final PUD approval, the applicant must provide: <br />22 On page 3 of Butte Conservancy a. City of Gresham, in Attachment C, you can read the virtually identical condition of approval that <br />LUBA approved when the City of Gresham dealt with a similar right-of-way situation. 0 <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 27 July 27, 2015 <br />219 <br />