a~ <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 />CITY OF EUGEN 26 <br />CITYATf ORNEY'.9 <br />OFFICE <br />125 E. P Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Phone (541) 582-8447 <br />Fax (541) 6825414 . <br />The Planning Commission's interpretation is correct and supported by <br />the language of the code. The street standards in EC 9.6870. include both <br />required rights-of-way width (i. e., required widths for property being <br />dedicated for future streets) and required widths for the actual construction <br />of streets (i. e., how wide does the actual pavement need to be for a certain <br />type of street when that street is actually being improved). For purposes of <br />EC 9.8320(5), the criteria for approval of a tentative PUD application, the <br />standards in EC 9.6870 that apply in this instance are those that regulate the <br />required width of dedicated right-of-ways. <br />d. The City's Determination That EC 9.8320(5)(b) is <br />Complied With is Supported by Substantial Evidence <br />Intervenor's third sub assignment of error is essentially a substantial <br />evidence challenge to the City's determination that EC 9.8320(5)(b) is <br />complied with. Intervenor relies on the same arguments set out above <br />regarding the public works staff Dolan findings, which he alleges <br />demonstrates an unsafe situation. As explained above, the City put those <br />Dolan findings in context, and explicitly concluded that the proposed PUD <br />would not create an unsafe roadway on Oakleigh Lane for vehicles, <br />pedestrian, bicyclists or transit. Rec. 9. Accordingly, its determination that <br />EC 9.8320(5)(b) is satisfied is supported by substantial evidence. <br />e. Condition Requiring Dedication of 22.5-Foot Strip is <br />Adequate to Demonstrate Compliance With Approval <br />Criteria <br />In his first subassignment of error, Intervenor alleges that the City <br />erred in failing to adopt a condition of approval that would "ensure a 45-foot <br />right-of=way." It is unclear to the City exactly what the Intervenor is- <br />Page 13 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />