t, i. t d t , r rt r: c is <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />December 5, 2013 <br />Page 2 <br />In other words, the hearings official specifically concluded that the extension of Oakleigh Lane must be <br />improved to the city's minimum street standards in order to provide safe access to the property. <br />On page 24, the hearings official discussed the testimony of many nearby residents. Those <br />residents expressed their concerns about the safety of the rest of Oakleigh Lane; in particular, that. <br />Oakleigh Lane is an undersized local street that is not wide enough to carry the volume of traffic that <br />would be generated by the proposed PUD. There is no dispute that Oakleigh Lane does not have <br />sufficient right of way or paved width to meet the City's minimum street standards - the same condition <br />that the hearings official found unsafe in his review of the street segment on the site of the proposed <br />PUD. Nonetheless, the hearings official dismissed those concerns; <br />"Oakleigh Lane need not have a dedicated 45 foot right of way and associated paved <br />surface from River Road to the subject property in order to meet EC 9,8320(5)," Page 25 <br />of HO's decision. <br />The hearings official based his conclusion on his reading of EC 9.8320(5)(a), but that reading is in error. <br />The hearings official expressed his understanding of the purpose of EC 9.8320(5)(a) to be <br />ensuring "that a proposed development is capable of dedicating sufficient land along the property <br />frontage to meet the right-of-way width requirements for that street dedication." Page 25 of the HO's <br />Decision. An interesting concept, but one that is not found anywhere in that code provision. <br />EC 9.9320(5)(a) reads in its entirety as follows; <br />"(5) The PUD [shall provide] safe and adequate transportation systems through <br />compliance with the following: <br />"(a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public <br />Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below), <br />"(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as <br />needed among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to <br />adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, <br />office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate <br />consistency with constitutional requirements, `Nearby' means uses within 1/4 <br />mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 <br />miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />"(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through <br />9.8680 where applicable." <br />EC 9.8320(5) requires the applicant to demonstrate that the PUD "provides a safe and adequate <br />transportation system." Subsection (a) of that provision requires compliance with EC 9.6800 through <br />232 <br />