LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-F - Laserfiche WebLink

i With the above review of the evidence, I'll discuss what is the simplest error and one that requires no difficult interpretation to understand and resolve. The Hearings Official erred in concluding that a condition requiring dedication of a 22.5 foot right-of-way on a portion of the north side of the subject property would satisfy the requirements of Eugene Code 9.8320(5)(a) with respect to that segment of Oakleigh Lane adjacent to the subject property.' The question here is very simple and narrow in scope: Does Condition #3 of the Hearings Official's Decision ensure there will be adequate Oakleigh Lane right-of-way along the frontage of the development property? The City Attorney has confirmed that, with respect to EC 9.8320(5)(a) and EC 9.6870 Street Width: "For purposes of EC 9.8320(5), the criteria for approval of a tentative PUD application, the standards in EC 9.6870 that apply in this instance are those that regulate the required width of dedicated right-of-ways." (City's LUBA brief at 13, provided in attached CD) The City also does not contest, and the record contains no dispute with, the simple and direct conclusion in the Eugene Public Works Department Report submitted September 13, 2013, under their findings for EC 9.8320(5)(a), that Oakleigh Lane requires a 45-foot right-of-way along the frontage of the proposed PUD in order to ensure safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel, as well as adequate emergency response and access: "Because 45 feet of right-of-way is the minimum amount of right-of-way necessary to construct Oakleigh Lane in this manner as a low-volume street, and because 33 feet of right-of-way is the minimum amount of right-of-way necessary to construct the turnaround at this location, the public interest in safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel and emergency response and access will be at risk if the 22.5 foot and 13 foot strips of right-of-way are not dedicated. Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the City's minimum street design standards9 and the 168 new vehicle trips per day generated by the proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by the proposed development; will not be assured of safe access via Oakleigh Lane." PH-30 at 3. (Emphasis added.) Condition #3 in the Hearings Official's decision, however, clearly does not ensure that Oakleigh Lane will have the 45-foot right-of-way necessary to ensure the public's safety, at the time of development or any time in the future. Condition #3 ensures only a 42.5-foot right-of-way: 8 This error was raised under the Appeal statement's Second Assignment of Error. 9 The City's minimum street standards require at least a 45-foot right-of-way. Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 12 July 27, 2015 204