"The PC finds that the constitutional findings in the Public Works referral comments are <br />limited to justification for a proportional right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the <br />subject property that would accommodate future public street improvements. The <br />constitutional findings address a future need for street improvements abutting the <br />property, rather than any immediate need, based on safety issues or otherwise, , <br />associated with the proposed PUD." EPC Decision at 4. <br />The applicant's attorney and City Attorney have repeated this specious claim that the Public <br />Works analysis under EC 9.8320(5) wasn't really specific to the impacts of the proposed <br />development, but rather was just a standard practice in order to acquire right-of-way whenever <br />new development occurred on a substandard street. <br />The applicant's attorney stated: <br />"As the City found, the half-street dedication was required to meet future transportation <br />needs, and not to address immediate safety concerns." Oakleigh Meadows Cohousing <br />Answering Brief, dated, October 22, 2014 at 27. (Provided in attached CD.) <br />the City did not determine that that [sic] a 45-foot right-of-way was necessary for <br />safety." Ibid at 29. <br />The City Attorney stated: <br />"We need this dedication for future. And the safety issues that came up regarding that <br />dedication were for future, um, not safety issues now. The City Public Works <br />Department never said that we think Oakleigh is unsafe unless you improve it at this <br />time." LUBA oral arguments audio recording at 31:36. (The audio recording that is <br />provided on the accompanying CD is incorporated herein.) <br />Such claims are easily exposed as untrue by simply re-reading what the Public Works Report <br />actually states: <br />"Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the City's <br />minimum street design standards4 and the 168 new vehicle trips per day generated by <br />the proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic <br />generated by the proposed development; will not be assured of safe access via Oakleigh <br />Lane. PH-30 at 3. (Emphasis added) <br />The analysis specifically refers to the "new vehicle trips generated by the proposed <br />development... [which] will not be assured of safe access." The applicant's attorney and City <br />Attorney should not attempt any further to disassociate the city's own technical staff's analysis <br />from the potential traffic impacts of the proposed PUD. <br />This time around, the Planning Commission must not avoid resolving the <br />inconsistencies in the Public Works Report. The sections below will make clear that the findings <br />under EC 9.8320(5) reflect the only reliable analysis and the conclusions under EC 9.8320(5) <br />must be applied to the entire length of Oakleigh Lane. <br />+ The City's minimum street standards require. at least a 45-foot right-of-way. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 7 July 27, 2015. <br />199 <br />