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

• testimony, without re-opening the hearing to me and all other persons who testified in the original proceedings. The elephant in the room - Conflicting Statements in the Public Works Report Regardless of how the applicant or city staff wish to wriggle around the fundamental code requirements in EC 9.8320(5) and EC 9.8320(6) that PUD residents are provided a transportation system that is safe and adequate, the inescapable question that the Planning Commission has an obligation to answer is this: Will Oakleigh Lane be safe and adequate once the PUD is developed? You must base your answer on the correct interpretation of the law and reliable evidence that's in the record. As most commissioners no doubt recall, the Hearings Official relied entirely on the Public Works Report for his findings regarding the safety and adequacy of Oakleigh Lane in its present condition .1,2 For example, the Hearings Official's findings for EC 9.6505(3) Streets and Alleys and (4) Sidewalks at D-3 37-38, include the statement: the 19-foot wide pavement width provides safe passage for two-way traffic." This was copied from the Planning Division Staff Report dated September 25, 2014 at 23. The Planning Commission relied on this statement, as well, by incorporating it by reference into the appeal decision. EPC Decision at 5. 2 Under EC 9.8320(5)(b), the Hearings Official also references a city standard, which is wholly irrelevant: "The Hearings Official also concurs with the applicant's October 23, 2013 final argument that the queuing effect of having a single travel lane along Oakleigh Lane is likely to result in lower speeds and acceptably safe conditions for pedestrians. The applicant provided evidence in support of this position from the city's Arterial and Collector Street Plan. The neighbors submitted this very same information in Exhibit PT-1." The referenced city standard is completely inapplicable to the conditions on Oakleigh Lane and provides no probative evidence regarding EC 9.8320(5)(b). The Hearings Official apparently did not realize that the cited standard makes clear that the street must be designed and striped for a single traffic lane and at least one parking lane: "The single traffic lane is intended to create a 'queuing street', such that when opposing vehicles meet, one of the vehicles must yield by pulling into a vacant portion of the adjacent parking lane." PT-4, Attachment B "Design Standards for and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways," page 36. The cited standard also says nothing about a "queuing street" that does not have sidewalks and therefore forces pedestrians to walk in the street. Oakleigh Lane clearly does not meet the standards for a "queuing street," and thus the "queuing effect" cannot be relevant to this case unless the Planning Commission imposes adequate conditions of approval for the entirety of Oakleigh Lane to have the necessary right-of-way, striped lanes, and sidewalks to meet the standards necessary for a safe and adequate "queuing street." The applicant's attorney also claimed in his LUBA brief (provided on the attached CD, and incorporated herein) that "licensed professional traffic engineer Mike Weishar, with Access Engineering, concurred that the development would not "reduce safety or service levels in the area." However, the entire content related to traffic safety that's found in the September 27, 2013 letter from Access Engineering (Exhibit PT-17) states: "I concur with staff findings that this development will not require further traffic analysis or reduce safety or service levels in the area." This is nothing more than a conclusory statement, with no supporting evidence or analysis, which cannot be relied upon for findings. The letter doesn't even reference anything in the record in support of the conclusion that the development will not reduce safety or service levels in the area. The letter also does not address the critical fact that at least six feet of the 19-foot-wide paving is on private property. Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 4 July 27, 2015