Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />problems with regard to either the street or the PUD. In any case, the opponents have <br />failed to establish any defect in the proposed PUD approval, and the Planning <br />Commission should deny this appeal and affirm the approval of the Oakleigh <br />Meadow Co-Housing project. <br />1. Eugene Public W <br />Subiect Property; The, <br />ction of A Portion of the <br />The opponents point to findings from the City of Eugene Public Works <br />department to argue that Oakleigh Lane is unsafe if either: (a) it is not developed to <br />City standards along its entire length; or (b) OMC does not dedicate the full right-of- <br />way required by City street standards. In fact, the applicant goes so far as to urge that: <br />"The o reliable evidence in the record regarding the safety and adequacy of <br />Oakleigh Lane is the thorough analysis that the City's own experts did regarding <br />compliance with EC 9.8320(5)." July 27, 2015 Testimony, p. 11 (underlining original). <br />However, as the City Hearings Official, the Planning Commission, and the Oregon <br />Land Use Board of Appeals, have each explained previously the Public Works <br />findings exist solely to provide the required constitutional findings under EC 9.6805, <br />to justify an exaction of a portion of the OMC's private property for a public right-of- <br />way, and did not identify any traffic hazard on Oakleigh Lane or associated with the <br />proposed development. <br />In fact, as will be addressed below, notwithstanding these exaction findings, <br />Public Works staff independently evaluated Oakleigh Lane and repeatedly confirmed <br />that Oakleigh Lane itself is adequate to accommodate all current traffic and proposed <br />trips until such time as the street is improved to City standards. This is reliable <br />evidence that clearly supports the approval of the application. <br />Where opponents get sidetracked is in confusing Public Works exaction <br />findings - that highlight the value of acquiring property for future street <br />improvements, and provide a correlation between traffic impacts and the right-of-way <br />being exacted - with a conclusion that the present street is unsafe. Staff made no such <br />finding. <br />Instead, staff made extensive findings in support of the half-street dedication in <br />order to address "constitutional requirements" as specified in EC 9.6805. As the City <br />Attorney has previously explained, these findings require a determination: (1) "that <br />there is a legitimate state interest justifying the imposition of an exaction;" (2) "that <br />there is a nexus between the permit condition and a legitimate state interest;" and (3) <br />"[t]he local government must demonstrate that the exaction and the anticipated <br />impact are 'roughly proportionate."' December 11, 2013 Memorandum from Anne Davies <br />to Eugene Planning Commission, p. 2. LUBA Rec. 19. The Public Works staff findings <br />address each of these three elements: <br />305 <br />