complaining about.6 The requirement to dedicate a 22.5-foot strip of land <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 EUGENE26 <br />C[TYATTORNEY'S <br />OFFICE <br />125 E. e Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Phone(541)682-8447 <br />Fax(541)682-5414 <br />was imposed specifically to ensure the full 45-foot right-of-way would be <br />available when Oakleigh Lane was eventually improved. <br />In part of his argument, Intervenor appears to assert that the required <br />22.5-foot dedication, plus the existing 20 foot right-of way,.is insufficient to <br />provide the full 45-foot right-of-way. To the extent that is his issue, <br />Intervenor misunderstands the facts. The existing 20-foot right-of-way was <br />dedicated in 1927 and lies to the north of the centerline of Oaklcigh Lane. <br />Rec. 999-1000. By imposing the condition requiring the 22.5-foot <br />dedication, the City did not anticipate that the full 45-foot right-of-way <br />would be obtained. Staff acknowledged that the additional 2.5 feet would <br />have to be obtained through some other method. However, one half of the <br />total 45-foot right-of-way (22.5 feet) was all that the City could justify <br />requiring as a condition of approval under constitutional takings limitations. <br />To the extent Intervenor is alleging that any portion of the right-of- <br />way needs to be fully improved prior to development of the PUD, again he is <br />mistaken, as explained above. <br />.LUBA does not have injunctive relief powers; it is limited to <br />affirming, remanding or reversing the challenged decision. ORS 197.835(1). <br />6 It appears as if, at least in some ~pplaces, Intervenor fails to rasp the <br />distinction between the term "right-of'waywhich the City s code uses to <br />refer to the unimproved bare dedicated strip of land, and the improved (i. e., <br />paved) street. <br />'Public Works referral comments provide: <br />"Based on the right-of-way requirement of 45' and the existing ri~ght- <br />of way width (which as rioted, is located entirely north of centerline), <br />an additional 22.5' south of the centerline is required. This dedication <br />would satisfy the right-of-way requirement for the properties south of <br />centerline, with the remainder of the 45' right-of-way being required <br />from the properties on the north side of the centerline." Rec. 1264. <br />Page 14 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />