In the information I presented during the "Public Comments" portion at the October 5, <br />2015 Planning Commission meeting, before commissioners discussed the staff draft and voted to <br />approve the findings, I provided the commissioners Resolution No. 4919 that unequivocally <br />proved the City Council had explicitly adopted findings that the minimum paving width for <br />local streets was 20', not 14'. (See Exhibit A.) Yet the staff who were present at that meeting <br />never informed the commissioners that Resolution No. 4919 proved the draft provided by staff <br />contained false information. <br />In conclusion, the claim that Oakleigh Lane can function as a "queuing street" is <br />completely bogus, and that falsehood is the only basis for the Planning Commission's prior <br />finding that the proposed PUD complies with EC 9.8320(6). <br />The Revised Final Order included excerpts from a three-page letter by a consultant hired <br />by the applicant.3 This letter, however, merely relied on the same false information regarding a <br />"queuing street." The finding excerpted above explicitly states that "[Michael] Weishar relies on <br />the following language" describing a queuing street, which obviously makes Weishar's opinion as <br />worthless as the falsehood that City Council found that 14-foot wide paving was safe. What's <br />more, the other opinions in Weishar's letter were based on the invalid assumption of a paving <br />width of 20 feet: <br />"Oakleigh Lane is a dead-end local street that runs approximately 1000 feet east from the <br />centerline of River Road. It is one of four consecutive streets that terminate at City <br />parkland on the west bank of the Willamette River. The street has an oil-mat surface of <br />proximately 20-feet in width, with no curbs and with intermittent gravel shoulders <br />along both sides of the street that permits parking in some areas. <br />"Oakleigh Lane is not improved with curbs, allowing on-street parking on the shoulders <br />of the paved portion of the street along most of its length." (Emphasis added) LUBA II <br />Rec 363-364 <br />Note that Weishar actually confirms that Oakleigh Lane has no sidewalks and that "on-street" <br />parking is allowed. However, he attempts to finesse where this parking is actually allowed and <br />where parking regularly occurs - which is within the right-of-way and on the paving. <br />Most of Weishar's comments, including claiming that Oakleigh Lane can function as a <br />"queuing street," follows his stated assumption of an available paving width of at least 20 feet. <br />That assumption is obviously incorrect - the available paving is about 14 feet for the 250-foot <br />long segment at the end of Oakleigh Lane. In addition this segment of Oakleigh Lane is <br />obstructed by LEGAL PARKING so that the available paving is even less than 14 feet at various <br />No one can determine in this land use process what future action the City might take in an <br />attempt to acquire easements for use of these owners' private property, or whether such action would <br />succeed. Consequently, the City cannot rely on the front yards of these homeowners to provide any <br />form of access to the PUD site. <br />3 LUBA II Rec 363-365. <br />Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 6 April 12, 2017 <br />