at least include safe and adequate facilities for vehicular connectivity from the PUD to <br />the City's street network. <br />The subsections of EC 9.8320(5) cannot be interpreted in isolation from that overarching <br />requirement, as the Hearings Official did. Essential, components of an "adequate <br />transportation system," such as Oakleigh Lane from the development site to River Road, <br />must comply with the requirements of subsection EC 9.8320(5)(a), including compliance <br />with the right-of-way and pavement width standards in EC 9.6870. To interpret <br />EC 9.8320(5) otherwise would impermissibly omit what is included in the code and <br />would lead to unreasonable results. <br />The analogy of a requirement to provide a safe and adequate wastewater system is used <br />to illustrate the correct interpretation and application of EC 9.8320(5). <br />Similarly, the Hearings Official misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of <br />EC 9.8320(11)(b) with respect to paving both the section of Oakleigh Lane adjacent to the <br />subject property and for the rest of Oakleigh Lane. Both sections of Oakleigh Lane must <br />have an unobstructed pavement, within the public right-of-way, as set forth in <br />EC 9.6870. <br />The Hearings Official misinterpreted and misapplied EC 9.8320(6) by basing his <br />conclusions on the deficient Public Works analysis of paving width (see the second <br />bullet, above) and by not evaluating whether the traffic arising from the PUD would <br />present an "impediment" to emergency response. His interpretation that the land and <br />structures of the PUD were the only things that could create an "impediment" was <br />incorrect and would lead to absurd results if applied to other requirements of <br />EC 9.8320(6), such as adverse health effects arising from air pollutants generated by the <br />PUD. <br />The Hearings Official further neglected to evaluate whether the traffic arising from the <br />PUD would create a risk to public safety on Oakleigh Lane, in other ways than as an <br />impediment to emergency response. <br />The Planning Commission must correct the findings to be in accord with the evidence <br />and the law and either deny the application or add conditions of approval that are <br />sufficient to ensure the application complies with EC 9.8320(5), EC 9.8320(6) and <br />EC 9.8320(11).. <br />To preserve my appeal rights on a potential procedural error, should the Eugene <br />Planning Commission allow the introduction of new evidence into the record by the <br />applicant, City, a commissioner or any other party, I am requesting that the Planning <br />Commission re-open the hearing to me and all other persons who testified in the <br />original proceedings. Should new evidence be allowed and my request is denied, I am <br />objecting to this as a procedural error that prejudices my substantial rights to participate <br />in this appeal. <br />Further, I am objecting to the Eugene Planning Commission allowing the applicant to <br />introduce any testimony into the record, other than argument in direct response. to my <br />• <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 3 July 27, 2015 <br />195 <br />