• <br />• <br />reasonable person could consider it reliable. Accordingly, the Planning Commission cannot rely <br />on Mr. Weishar opinion for a finding that Oakleigh Lane in its current condition would be safe. <br />TITLE REPORTS CONFIRM SURVEY <br />The eight pages of title reports included in the applicant's testimony are just copies of <br />documents already in the record at LUBA Rec 467-470,479-480 and 568-569; and which I had <br />previously referenced in at the top of Attachment B in my July 27, 2015 testimony and <br />Attachment B of my August 31, 2015. The metes-and-bounds property descriptions contained in <br />these reports confirm the areas shown on the surveys that I submitted on August 31, 2015. <br />CONCLUSION <br />By any reasonable assessment the proposed site at the end of Oakleigh Lane is not suitable for <br />29 new dwelling units because Oakleigh Lane isn't adequate for emergency access and the <br />narrow pavement, constrained by legally-parked cars, forces an unsafe sharing of the roadway <br />by vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians (some of whom may be in wheelchairs). <br />There are several alternative ways the Planning Commission can address the facts in the record. <br />The most sensible, and defensible, approach is to deny the application for failing to comply with <br />EC 9.8320(5), (6) and (11)(b), as well as EC 9.8320(7) and (11)(k). Denying this application would <br />allow the applicant to potentially address the street safety issues and/or reduce the number of <br />dwelling units. This decision would allow full public review and comment on the application <br />and the true facts regarding Oakleigh Lane and applicable Eugene Fire Code requirements. <br />A second alternative would be to approve the application with sufficient conditions that would <br />ensure adequate Oakleigh Lane right-of-way, pavement and improvements to meet code <br />requirements and to provide a safe and adequate street for drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, fire <br />fighters and other emergency personnel. <br />Finally, the Planning Commission could approve this development without any additional <br />conditions on the right-of-way, pavement and improvements of Oakleigh Lane and without <br />even requiring that the city and/or county maintain the roadway and post and enforce "no <br />parking" signs. That approach would be an unconscionable failure on your part to protect and <br />promote the public's safety. It would also likely lead to another remand. <br />Respectfully, <br />Simr~+~rv, ttn i,• Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 11 <br />283 <br />September 4, 2015 <br />274 <br />