Cs n--7ATTACHMEN,TE <br />S~ o <br />II <br />I jl <br />PORTLAND OFFICE rrrfCh nrnt.', ulrr.ikrr <br />,</rr-1111 llrror beijinl-v, ehina <br />/21 .<rn rnurris a ,lrecA nrln lorl:, new Turk <br />prurl,rnrl, aregun 97201-i3/{1 zeaIIIe, IV a,!IintI"I <br />TEL 03 22R 3930 FAX 503 2?(i 0-9.59 w-h int!.nn. d- <br />GSBLAW.C0W <br />Please reply to WILLIAM K. KABEISEMAN <br />billkab@gsblaiv.com <br />Direct Dial 503 553 3231 <br />A ugust 11, 2015 <br />VIA EMAIL - anne.c.daviesCwci.eugene.or.us <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 />