Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 17 <br />Since the opponents cannot establish that improved street is unsafe, on remand <br />the applicant raises a new issue, by arguing that improved surface of Oakleigh Lane is <br />narrower. than 19 feet, because portions of the street are located outside of the public <br />right-of-way. This is an issue that could have been, but was not, raised before the City <br />in the prior appeal, and, therefore, is not properly before the City on remand. Beck, v. <br />City of Tillamook, 313 Or 148, 831 P2d 678 (1992); McCulloch v. City of Jacksonville, 49 Or <br />LUBA 345, 360 (2005). While the question of "safety" may have been raised in the <br />prior appeal, the location of Oakleigh Lane - which has not changed since 2013 - could <br />have been, but was not raised. Accordingly, this issue is not properly before <br />Commission. See McCulloch v. City of Jacksonville, supra, 49 Or L UBA at 360 (raising the <br />issue,of "safety" of the street is not sufficient to raise the issue of location of the street <br />on remand). <br />In the alternative, to the extent that the. Planning Commission considers this <br />issue on remand, the evidence in the record establishes that the Oakleigh Lane is <br />approximately 20 feet. The opponents own survey measures the improved surface of <br />the street at five points, from west to east: <br />1. "20.5 FT AC PAVING NO CURBS" <br />2. "21.3 FT OF AC PAVING NO CURBS" <br />3. "21.2 FT OF AC PAVING NO CURBS" <br />4. "19.8 FT OF AC PAVING NO CURBS" <br />5. "19.9 FT OF AC PAVING NO CURBS" <br />This survey clearly establishes that Oakleigh Lane has an improved width of <br />approximately 20 feet. _ <br />The opponents urge, nevertheless, that "doesn't actually contain a 19-foot <br />pavement" because "there is only a 13-foot wide strip of pavement that is in the public <br />right-of-way and of which the public's use can be ensured." July 27, 2015 Appeal <br />Testimony, p. 8 & 10. However, the opponents are wrong both on the facts and the law. <br />With regard to the issue of width, the opponents' survey establishes that more <br />than 14 feet of improved surface is located within the public right-of-way even within <br />the purported choke point.. Fourteen feet is more that adequate to safely <br />accommodate fire apparatus and emergency vehicles. In fact, the City allows a single <br />14-foot travel lane for "local residential streets with traffic volumes less than 750 <br />vehicles per day." Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Street, Sidewalks, Bikeways <br />and Accessways, p. 36. The City's adopted 14-foot road standard establishes that 14 feet <br />is an adequate paved width'for emergency. vehicles. See ORS 368.039. The opponents <br />urge that such a width is, nevertheless, unsafe because parking could block access for <br />emergency vehicles. However, as noted above, ample off-street parking is included <br />along Oakleigh Lane in driveways and garages and in the gravel parking areas located <br />within the public right-of-way. <br />320 <br />440 <br />i <br />I <br />