14 <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 FuGENFz <br />CITY ATTORNEYS <br />OFFICE <br />125 E, & Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Phone (541f682-8447 <br />Fax(541)682-5414 <br />analysis (counting only easements that benefit the residents of the proposed <br />PUD) and the Hearings Official's analysis (counting all easements) are - <br />immaterial. Under either approach, the proposal satisfies the net density <br />requirement. See; staff calculations at Rec. 1007-08; and Hearings Official <br />calculations at 5455. <br />Finally, the proper question to be answered by the Board is not <br />whether Petitioners have proposed a "more reasonable" interpretation. The <br />Board is to review the interpretation set forth in the challenged decision and <br />determine whether it is correct. McCoy v. Linn County, 90 Or App at 275- <br />76. The City's interpretation that the easements in question were to be <br />counted in the acreage of land considered part of the residential use for <br />purposes of the net density calculation is correct and LUBA must affirm it. <br />V. CONCLUSION <br />The City has a method of dealing with incremental development that <br />manages to balance the safety needs of the community, the financial burdens <br />placed on the public coffers, and stays within constitutional and local code <br />limitations. That method involves exacting property from developers when <br />and to the extent such exaction can be constitutionally justified in order to <br />pave the way for future street improvements. Where there is not an <br />immediate safety need to improve a street serving a proposed development, <br />the City will not, indeed cannot, require immediate improvement of that <br />street. The City's approach in this case to exact right-of-way, based on a <br />finding that the right-of-way will be needed when and if any future <br />improvements occur, and to require an irrevocable petition for those future <br />improvements, is consistent with its practice, its local code and <br />constitutional mandates. <br />Page 29 - BRIEF OF RFsPONDENT <br />