Attachment D <br />the width specified in EC 9.6870 Street Width with provision for drainage and construction <br />of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street trees and street lights adjacent to the development <br />site according to the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, <br />Bikeways and Accessways and standards and specifications adopted pursuant to EC Chapter <br />7 and other adopted plans and policies. <br />Public Works staff confirms that Oakleigh Lane is not improved to City standards because it <br />lacks curbs and gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks, and street trees. The street does have <br />existing street lights and the 19-foot wide pavement width provides safe passage for two- <br />way traffic. As such, Public Works staff indicates that it is appropriate to defer public <br />improvements via an irrevocable petition, with the following condition of approval: <br />The applicant shall submit an Irrevocable Petition for public improvements in <br />Oakleigh Lane to include paving, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks, and <br />street trees. <br />Irrevocable petitions enable the City to initiate a local improvement process and obligate <br />the property owners to pay their proportional share of the street construction costs in the <br />future. The City could construct the street when the majority of benefitting property <br />owners agrees to pay for the improvements. Based on the above findings and condition, the <br />development will comply with the applicable street improvement standards (HO Decision, <br />Pages 37 and 38) <br />Staff notes that these improvement specifications direct how to design and construct the <br />improvements, not when and where to construct them; however, the specifications for paving and <br />sidewalks do appear to limit the developer's responsibility to just the portion "adjacent to the <br />development site." Although no immediate public improvements were required of the development, <br />compliance with the above was based on the condition for an irrevocable petition, which would enable <br />a future capital project. <br />As with similar, related appeal issues above, if the PC determines the HO erred, the PC should consider <br />whether additional requirements such as wider right-of-way and improvements are necessary to meet <br />the approval criteria, and if so, whether it is feasible and legally justified to establish these <br />requirements as conditions of approval. Alternatively, the PC could make findings to explain how the <br />approval criteria have not been met, for example, if it is determined that additional right-of-way is <br />necessary but not feasible to require under the approval criteria. <br />5. Fifth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(12) <br />"The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts including impacts such as <br />traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental quality." <br />The appellant asserts that the HO did not properly interpret the meaning of "minimal off-site impacts" <br />and in doing so he robbed EC 9.8320(12) of any meaning or purpose, by assuming that this criterion is <br />not implicated with regard to traffic because EC 9.8670 does not require a TIA. The appellant also <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 7 <br />