• <br />July 27, 2015 <br />Appeal Testimony re PDT 13-1 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o Gabe Flock, Planner <br />City of Eugene 9 <br />99 West 10th Avenue, <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Submitted by: Simon Trautman <br />Send notices to: 2303 C Street, Bellingham, WA 98225 <br />Re: City File No. PDT 13-1; Oakleigh PUD <br />Opposition to Hearings Official Decision <br />Dear Commissioners: <br />*Received <br />JUL 27 2015 <br />City of Eugene <br />Planning Division <br />The November 22, 2013 Appeal Statement ("Appeal Statement") for PDT 13-1 identified ten <br />assignments of error. This letter provides further explanation of several errors that are <br />enumerated in the Appeal Statement. Several of the Hearings Official's errors concerned the <br />right-of-way and improvements (such as paving) for Oakleigh Lane. <br />To begin with, the Hearings Official erroneously claimed that the record contained no <br />evidence of associated traffic problems. HO Decision, marked "D-3", at 55. Contrary to that <br />misleading assertion, the truth is that I submitted concrete evidence into the record on <br />September 1, 2013, including a photograph, of the accident in which I was injured at the <br />intersection of Oakleigh Lane and River Road. PH-49. <br />My testimony provided an explanation of how that accident was directly related to <br />existing street conditions that would leave drivers, pedestrians and cyclists at risk on Oakleigh <br />Lane if twenty-nine new dwellings were added at the far end. My testimony here is based on a <br />first-hand understanding of-how critical it is that my neighbors and our kids not be endangered <br />by more than doubling the traffic on Oakleigh Lane in its current condition. <br />I know it may be tempting for some commissioners to consider that these appeal issues <br />were fully and properly addressed by the Eugene Planning Commission (EPC) in your appeal <br />decision of December 16, 2013 (EPC Decision), and that you can breeze over my testimony <br />without paying close attention. <br />That would be both unwise and a shirking of your responsibilities in this quasi-judicial <br />proceeding. <br />If you will carefully follow what I present below, you should recognize that your original <br />decision was based on incorrect facts and multiple misunderstandings of the issues and the law. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 1 <br />• <br />July 27, 2015 <br />- SCP WpExJ . <br />