J <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 6 <br />finding related to explaining the justification for the dedication required under <br />EC 9.8320(5)(a). Staff's conclusions are properly understood to require the <br />proposed PUD to dedicate sufficient right-of-way along the subject property's <br />frontage to allow Oakleigh Lane to be brought up to the low volume residential <br />street standard along that frontage. That is consistent with requiring the <br />proposed PUD to meet current street design standards rather than allowing the <br />development to access Oakleigh Lane in its current form. The Hearings Official <br />agrees with the applicant's conclusion that there is no inconsistency in the <br />Staff's findings." Hearings Official's Decision, p. 27 (Underlining original); LUBA <br />Rec. 47. <br />The Planning Commission affirmed.the Hearings Official's decision with regard'to <br />each of these findings. <br />While noting that EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 apply to "design and location" of <br />public ways as well as to "dedication," the Planning Commission affirmed the <br />Hearings Official's determination that these standards did not apply to the existing <br />Oakleigh Lane. The Commission found: <br />"[T]he PC agrees that neither EC 9.8320(5)(a) nor EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 <br />require. that an existing street must meet certain standards in-order to serve a <br />proposed development. EC 9.6870 only provides the required paving widths <br />• for certain types of streets when and if those streets are ever fully improved to <br />City standards." Final Order, p. 3; LUBA Rec. 8. <br />Furthermore, with regard to the self-same Public Works findings that the <br />opponents are again relying on in this appeal, the Commission found: <br />"The PC finds that the constitutional findings in the Public Works referral <br />comments are limited to justification for a proportional right-of-way exaction <br />along-the frontage of the subject property that would accommodate future <br />public street improvements. The constitutional findings address a future need <br />for street improvements abutting the property, rather than any immediate need <br />based on safety issues or otherwise, associated with the proposed PUD. The PC <br />concludes that no additional right-of-way dedication or street improvements <br />are necessary to meet the approval criteria. Based on these. findings, the <br />pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation requirements of EC 9.8320(5)(b) are <br />met." Id. at 4. LUBA Rec. 9. <br />The Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals went on to affirm these findings <br />as correct and supported by substantiat evidence in the record. LUBA found: <br />"In a portion of his first assignment of error, we also understand <br />Conte to argue that the planning commission's conclusion that <br />Oakleigh Lane is presently safe and will be safe after the PUD is built <br />is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. <br />309 <br />429 <br />