• analysis that Oakleigh Lane would be an impediment to emergency response unless the <br />right-of-way was widened and the road improved. <br />Based on the previous determination under the second assignment of error about the limited scope of <br />the PW constitutional findings for right-of-way exaction, the PC finds no basis in the record to require <br />additional right-of-way dedication or street improvements. The PC concludes that the HO's conditions <br />for right-of-way dedications and irrevocable petitions address a future need for street improvements; <br />rather than any immediate need associated with the proposed PUD. The PC also concludes that the <br />HO's conditions for a temporary turnaround easement within the development site adequately <br />address the emergency response provision of EC 9.8320(6). The HO findings on page 29--31 are hereby <br />incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed <br />under this assignment of error. <br />Fourth Assianment of Error. The Decision erred by findina the application met EC <br />9.83.2.0(11)(b) "The PUD complies with all of the following... EC 9.6505 Improvement- <br />Specifications (3)(b) Streets and Alleys, (4) Sidewalks, and (5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways <br />A: Sub-assignment. of Error 4.A: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is <br />not only adjacent to,-but also serves as the only vehicular access to and from the <br />development site, would be paved to the specifications in EC 9.6870 (or exempt). <br />• B. Sub-assignment of Error 4.8: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is <br />not only adjacent to, but also is and will be used by pedestrians to and from River road <br />and to and from the public bike/ped path along the river, would provide sufficient <br />sidewalks that are located, designed and constructed according to the specifications in <br />Eugene Code and referenced standards. <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 4.C. the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is <br />not only adjacent to, but also is and will be used by bicyclists to and from River Road and <br />to and from the public bike/ped path along the river, would provide sufficient bike <br />accessways that are located, designed and constructed according to the specifications in <br />Eugene Code and referenced standards. <br />The PC finds that the HO did not err in finding compliance with EC 9.8320(11)(b). As confirmed under <br />the second assignment of error, the PC determines that the PW referral comments are not evidence of <br />a safety concern under existing or proposed conditions. The PC concludes that the conditions of <br />approval imposed by the HO for right-of-way dedication and irrevocable petitions sufficiently ensure <br />that the improvement standards at EC 9.6505 will be met. With regard to the local improvement <br />process associated with the irrevocable petitions, the PC finds that this is not an undue burden on the <br />abutting property owners. The PC further affirms that the development's traffic impacts are acceptable <br />under the PUD approval criteria. The HO findings on pages 33-50 are hereby incorporated by reference <br />as further evidence of compliance.with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. <br />• Fifth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(12 <br />J <br />{00109077;1 } <br />DRAFT Final Order <br />Page 5 <br />15 <br />