It's plain as day what the minimums are under the "Paving Width" columns, and that what the <br />staff wrote was completely false.' <br />Further confirmation that the City Council has never adopted "14' paving width" as a <br />standard that would "ensure unimpeded emergency response" is in the following finding that <br />Council actually did adopt in Resolution No. 4919 on October 22, 2007: <br />"The minimum width allowed under the design standards for local streets and <br />neighborhood streets is 20 feet." <br />The full resolution is attached as Exhibit A (pages "1" through "Y); and it clearly demonstrates <br />that it takes an act of City Council to approve a lesser paving width for a local street such as Oakleigh <br />Lane. <br />By itself, the truth about the minimum paving width entirely invalidates the Planning <br />Commission's previous finding, but there is another equally damning falsehood in what staff <br />put in the draft that they provided to commissioners: <br />"These gravel areas and the approximately 6 feet of paving that lies outside the right of <br />way on the south side of Oakleigh Lane will provide any necessary 'parking lanes'." <br />As is clear from Table 2, above, the parking lane(s) must be 7 feet wide and paved. Neither staff, <br />nor the Planning Commission can usurp the City Council's decision as to the appropriate <br />minimum for a queuing street. Furthermore, areas outside the right-of-way cannot legally or <br />functionally be considered in evaluating how a street can function unless there are binding and <br />enforced agreements providing for public use. The claim that "paving that lies outside the right <br />of way on the south side of Oakleigh Lane will provide any necessary 'parking lanes"' is as <br />stupid as it is deceitful. Staff might as well have claimed that vehicles can drive across residents' <br />front yards because, in fact, that's exactly what these paved areas are part of.z <br />At the September 28, 2015 Eugene Planning Commission, Commissioner Taylor made a number of <br />false statements claiming that the City Council had adopted 14-foot wide paving as "safe" and <br />"approved" for a fire access road. These claims were patently false, as can be seen from Table 2. <br />Taylor also referenced a paragraph in the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, <br />Bikeways and Accessway, which she quoted as stating: "A minimum fourteen-foot clear lane is needed <br />for fire apparatus." Here is the complete section: <br />B. Median <br />1) Center medians are a design option for Low-Volume and Medium-Volume Residential <br />Streets, but the street design must ensure the minimum 14' clear lane needed for fire <br />apparatus. <br />2) Medians shall be landscaped with groundcover, trees, and shrubs less than 3' in height. <br />It's quite clear the 14' clear lane refers to each one-way travel lane on either side of the median. Taylor <br />blatantly misled commissioners with her false representation of what elected officials had approved. <br />The attached Exhibits B and C are copies of letters to the Eugene City Attorney from two owners of <br />property on which some of the paving outside the right-of-way is located. These letters make clear that <br />the owners do not consent to public use of their private property and may take legal action to prevent <br />trespass. <br />Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 5 April 12, 2017 <br />