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

Gam` 5 A k V E Y C Ti !i 6 r h r E1 A is E k Eugene Planning Commission August 11, 2015 Page 3 paving to bring Oakleigh Lane up to standard. The Appeal Statement identified these issues in numerous places and specifically called out the need for adequate improvements, including paving: • "The Decision failed to impose adequate condition(s) to ensure there would be sufficient right- of-way, sidewalks and other improvements required [to provide for an adequate pedestrian environment]." Appeal Statement, p 3. • "Evidence in the record clearly shows that Oakleigh Lane would have to be widened and improved to accommodate the significant increase in vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic that the PUD would generate and still provide a safer and efficient road.... Approval of this PUD without such conditions would thereby cause the other property owners along Oakleigh lane to face potential condemnation." Appeal Statement, p 3. • "The Decision erroneously limited the scope of EC 9.6800 to "dedications" and neglected to evaluate, and impose conditions, as necessary to ensure the safety of vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians using Oakleigh Lane would be protected and promoted." Appeal Statement, p 6. • "As noted elsewhere in the Hearings Official decision, a 45 foot right of way was required and, • the public interest in safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel and emergency response will be at risk" if that minimum right of way is not dedicated." Appeal Statement, p 7-8. • "The Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own analysis that "emergency response and access will be at risk" unless Oakleigh Lane's right-of-way was widened and the road improved." Appeal Statement, p 9. • "In addition, the errors cited [elsewhere in the Appeal Statement], as they relate to the safety of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, demonstrate that the PUD would pose significant risk to public safety unless Oakleigh Lane is widened and improved." Appeal Statement, p 9. • "The Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own analysis that Oakleigh Lane would be an impediment to emergency response unless the right-of-way was widened and the road improved. Instead he relied entirely on staff findings." Appeal Statement, p 10. • "The Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is not only adjacent to, but also serves as the only vehicular access to and from the development site, would be paved to the specifications in EC 9.6870." Appeal Statement, p 10. • "The Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is not only adjacent to, but also is and will be used by pedestrians to and from River Road and to and from the public bike/ped path along the river, would provide sufficient sidewalks that are located, designed and constructed according to the specifications in Eugene Code and referenced standards." Appeal Statement, • p 11. 50