The Hearings Official relied upon his findings for EC 9.8320(5) and EC 9.8320(11)(b) without <br />any further explanation. The Hearings Official also relied upon his erroneous statement that the <br />city street standards didn't apply. Netted out then, the Hearings Official relied on the Public <br />Works Report findings regarding a 19-foot paving width that "the existing paved surface in <br />Oakleigh Street will continue to adequately provide for motorized and foot traffic, as well as for <br />emergency vehicles." <br />As demonstrated above, Oakleigh Lane doesn't have a 19-foot paving width within the <br />right-of-way and cannot be ensured to be free of obstruction by parked vehicles. <br />Consequently, the Hearings Official's conclusion was not supported by reliable evidence <br />and must be rejected. There is no evidence in the record that thirteen feet of paving is wide <br />enough for an emergency vehicle and oncoming car or truck to pass by safely. The city's own <br />street width standards in Eugene Code Table 8.6870 require even an alley to have paving at <br />least twelve feet for restricted, one-way travel and twenty feet wide for two-way travel. There is <br />no reasonable basis for a finding that 13-foot wide paving for 250 feet would not be an <br />impediment to emergency response. ' <br />LUBA agreed with the applicant's argument that EC 9.8320(6) required only that the <br />PUD itself, i.e., the land, structures, on-site improvements, etc., not create the impediment to <br />emergency response. This is an unreasonably narrow interpretation and is inconsistent with the <br />definition of "impediment": <br />"something that makes it difficult to do or complete something something that <br />interferes with movement or progress." - Merriam-Webster on-line <br />If the resulting off-site impacts that arise solely from activities by PUD residents or other <br />sources on the PUD may potentially interfere with the movement of emergency response <br />vehicles, the City is required to analyze the potential impediment and explain their findings. In <br />this case, if the additional traffic on Oakleigh Lane that arises from the PUD would potentially <br />impede emergency vehicles rushing to or from the PUD or other residences on Oakleigh Lane, <br />particularly in the 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane that has only 13-foot wide paving in the <br />public right-of-way. The Public Works report was clear on the potential conflicts when it stated: <br />"Oakleigh Street will continue to adequately provide for emergency vehicles..., <br />provided the paved surface is not blocked by parked vehicles." PH-30 at 14 (Emphasis <br />added) <br />As discussed above, the Hearings Official decision provides no analysis or findings that ensure <br />the public is allowed to drive on the six feet of pavement that's on private property and that <br />Oakleigh Lane will not be blocked by parked vehicles. <br />Furthermore, the overarching requirement is that "[t]he PUD will not be a significant <br />risk to public health and safety." What follows in the text are clearly just some examples: <br />"including but not limited to As explained above, the potential impacts of "[t]he PUD" <br />cannot be limited to just its physical properties, but must also include its operational impacts, <br />including the additional traffic that's generated and that traffic's potential impact on the safety <br />• <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 26 July 27, 2015 <br />218 <br />