3 <br />rE~, ~ <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />August 11, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />paving to bring Oakleigh Lane up to standard. The Appeal Statement identified these issues in. <br />numerous places and specifically called out the need for adequate improvements, including paving: <br />• "The Decision failed to impose adequate condition(s) to ensure there would be sufficient right- <br />of-way, sidewalks and other improvements required [to provide for an adequate pedestrian <br />environment]." Appeal Statement, p 3. <br />• "Evidence in the record clearly shows that Oakleigh Lane would have to be widened and <br />improved to accommodate the significant increase in vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic <br />that the PUD would generate and still provide a safer and efficient road.... Approval of this <br />PUD without such conditions would thereby cause the other property owners along Oakleigh <br />lane to face potential condemnation." Appeal Statement, p 3. <br />• "The Decision erroneously limited the scope of EC 9.6800 to "dedications" and neglected to <br />evaluate, and impose conditions, as necessary to ensure the safety of vehicles, bicyclists and <br />pedestrians using Oakleigh Lane would be protected and promoted." Appeal Statement, p 6. <br />• "As noted elsewhere in the Hearings Official decision, a 45 foot right of way was required and, <br />"the public interest in safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel and emergency response will <br />be at risk" if that minimum right of way is not dedicated." Appeal Statement, p 7-8. <br />• "The Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own analysis that "emergency response <br />and access will be at risk" unless Oakleigh Lane's right-of-way was widened and the road <br />improved." Appeal Statement, p 9. <br />• "In addition, the errors cited [elsewhere in the Appeal Statement], as they relate to the safety of <br />drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, demonstrate that the PUD would pose significant risk to <br />public safety unless Oakleigh Lane is widened and improved." Appeal Statement, p 9. <br />"The Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own analysis that Oakleigh Lane <br />would be an impediment to emergency response unless the right-of-way was widened and the <br />road improved. Instead he relied entirely on staff findings." Appeal Statement, p 10. <br />• "The Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is not only adjacent to, but also <br />serves as the only vehicular access to and from the development site, would be paved to the <br />specifications in EC 9.6870." Appeal Statement, p 10. <br />• "The Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is not only adjacent to, but also is <br />and will be used by pedestrians to and from River Road and to and from the public bike/ped path <br />along the river, would provide sufficient sidewalks that are located, designed and constructed <br />according to the specifications in Eugene Code and referenced standards." Appeal Statement, <br />p 11. <br />50 <br />