ORS 197.763(6)(c) limits testimony during this response period through September 4, 2015 to "an <br />opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open." <br />Testimony submitted after August 31, 2015 cannot contain new evidence. Testimony submitted <br />after August 31, 2015 also cannot contain any argument that is not in response to the new <br />evidence that was submitted on August 31, 2015. <br />To preserve my substantial procedural rights, I am stating a precautionary objection if the <br />applicant, city staff person or any other party submits new evidence or argument that is not <br />compliant with ORS 197.763(6) and (7). <br />AN ESSENTIAL TEST <br />Before the Planning Commission can lawfully and in good conscience approve this application, <br />you must - at the very least - be able to answer affirmatively the following question: <br />Does our decision ensure that afire truck will be able to make it to the proposed development site <br />without requiring that the fire truck or an oncoming vehicle has to back up to a point that allows <br />the fire truck to advance to and onto the site? <br />This question, of course, is not the only question the Planning Commission must answer. <br />However, 'it offers a good litmus test for whether Oakleigh Lane is safe and adequate. <br />UNRELIABLE TRAFFIC "ANALYSIS" <br />As covered in full detail below, the August 27, 2015 letter from Michael Weishar of Access <br />Engineering contains so many errors, omissions and false and misleading information that the <br />letter's conclusions are wholly unreliable. <br />The conclusions in this letter are also inconsistent with Eugene Fire Code and the locally <br />adopted street standards in the Eugene Land Use Code <br />The conclusions in this letter are also inconsistent with the analysis and recommendations of <br />major organizations concerned with traffic safety, including Oregon Department of <br />Transportation (ODOT), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the federal <br />Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). <br />DIXON'S ANECDOTAL LETTER CHANGES NOTHING <br />The August 27, 2015 letter from Willard Dixon simply claims that he and his family have used <br />some portions of Oakleigh Lane, which I believe is true, but which in and of itself has no <br />immediate relevance to the findings in this case. <br />He anecdotally reports that he hasn't observed that the road surface was "blocked" by parked <br />cars. That wouldn't be surprising if what he means is that he never saw cars blocking the street <br />so completely that no other car could pass. However, my argument is in no way based on cars <br />completely blocking the street. <br />Dixon 's letter does not appear to dispute that cars do park on the Oakleigh Lane pavement and <br />on the gravel on the north side of the right of way. Examples of both of these cases appear in <br />0 <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 2 September 4, 2015 <br />274 265 <br />