k, <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13- <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br />CITY ArfORNEY's <br />OFFICE <br />125 E. 8'h Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 87401 <br />Phone (541) 682-8447 <br />Fax (541) 682-5414 <br />page 29-31 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence <br />of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this <br />assignment of error." Rec. 10. <br />The Planning Commission's conclusion that EC 9.8320(6) is complied With <br />is supported by substantial evidence in the record. <br />4. Response to Sixth Sub Assignment of Error (1.F) <br />The City did not err in concluding EC 9.8320(11)(b)was complied <br />with <br />EC 9.8320(11)(b) requires a demonstration that the proposed PUD <br />complies.with EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6505 - Public Improvement <br />Standards. The required public improvement specifications are found at EC <br />9.6505(3)(Streets and Alleys), 9.6505(4)(Sidewalks), and 9.6505(5)(Bicycle <br />Paths and Accessways). Once again, Intervenor'.s argument relies upon his <br />undocumented assertions of safety issues if Oakleigh Lane is not <br />immediately improved to full city street standards. As explained above, <br />those improvements are not required at this time to insure safe passage on <br />Oakleigh Lane. The Hearings Official imposed a condition of approval <br />requiring the applicant to execute an irrevocable petition for public <br />improvements, which would insure financial contribution by the applicant if <br />and when Oaldeigh Lane was ever improved to city standards. <br />C. Response to Petitioners' Fourth Assignment of Error <br />The City did not err in approving the Hammerhead <br />As explained above, EC 9.8320(5)(a) requires compliance with EC <br />9.6800 through 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways. <br />EC 9.6815 provides connectivity standards for streets. Secondary access for <br />fire and emergency medical vehicles, consistent with EC 9.68705 is generally <br />required. EC 9.6815(2)(d). An exception to that standard may be granted, <br />Page 20 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />