Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />The Hearings Official previously provided a detailed and reasoned explanation' <br />of why the staff's findings concerning the dedication' did not , demonstrate the <br />existence of a traffic safety issue on Oakleigh Lane: <br />"EC 9.8320(5)(a) requires an applicant to demonstrate that it is possible, when <br />necessary, for the applicant to 'dedicate' sufficient land to accommodate public <br />ways, including right-of-way for streets under EC 9.6800-8675. The purpose of <br />those sections of the code are set forth in EC 9.6800 and states: "[s]ections 9.6800 <br />through 9.6875 establish standards for the dedication, design and location of <br />public ways to address. the purpose of this land use code contained in EC 9.0020 <br />Purpose." The pertinent sections of EC 9.6800 are EC 9.6805 and 9.6870. <br />Importantly, EC 9.6805 allows the city to 'require dedication of public ways for <br />bicycle and/or pedestrian use as well as for streets and alleys„ * * EC 9.6870 <br />sets forth the 'width' of the right-of-way and paved service to be 'dedicated' in <br />order to conform to the standards set forth in Table 9.6870. <br />The opponents' arguments fundamentally misconstrue the requirement in EC <br />9.8320(5) which is to ensure that a proposed development is capable of <br />dedicating sufficient land along the property frontage to meet the right-of-way <br />width requirements for that street designation. A'dedi.catior, is a form of legal <br />'taking' of property for public use that is intended to provide for public safety <br />and offset impacts -imposed by development. Because EC 9.8320(5)(a) is • <br />concerned with the dedication of land for a street, neither that provision nor EC <br />9.6800-9.6875 set forth standards that an existing street must meet in order to <br />serve a proposed development. * * * * <br />Based on the above interpretation of EC 9.8320(5)(a), the opponents' arguments <br />as. set forth above are not relevant to whether the applicant has met the <br />requirement to dedicate sufficient land to create a 45 foot right-of-way along <br />Oakleigh Lane. Although eloquently argued, Mr. Conte's substantial analysis <br />of the Staff findings are well outside the scope of EC 9.8320(5)(a), EC 9.6805 and <br />EC 9.6870. Oakleigh Lane need not have a dedicated 45-foot right-of-way and <br />associated paved surface from River Road to the subject property in order to <br />meet EC 9.8320(5)(a) because that provision is a standard for 'dedication" of <br />land, not a 'service' standard akin to level of service LOS. i. Neither does EC <br />9.8320(5)(a) require neighbors to now dedicate a portion of their property to the <br />widening of the right-of-way or paved surface of Oakleigh~ Lane." Hearings <br />Official's Decision, p. 24-5; LUBA Rec. 44-5. <br />The Hearings Official went on to specifically reject opponents' arguments that the. <br />exaction findings demonstrated a present safety issuer <br />"As to Mr. Conte's assertion that the Staff's own findings concede that <br />pedestrian and bicycle traffic will not be assured safe use of Oakleigh Lane, the <br />Hearings Official disagrees. PT-4. The statement Mr. Conte alights on is a <br />0 <br />308 <br />428 <br />