2017 Remand – Initial Open Record Ending 4-12-17

to defer public improvements via an irrevocable petition." Pages 13-14 of PWD Report (LUBA I Record at 1268-1269) There are two critical elements of this passage: a) In reaching this conclusion, the analysis explicitly relies on "the existing paved surface" to provide "safe passage for two-way traffic The problem here is that the PWD report assumed a paving width of at least 19 feet along the entirety of Oakleigh Lane from River Road to the entry of the proposed PUD. The PWD conclusion might have been reasonable if the assumption about the paving width had been correct, since the City Council had approved a paving width of 18 feet (two 9-foot travel lanes) for Crest Drive.' However, when the true fact came out that the final 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane has a paving width of only about 14 feet within the public right-of-way, the PWD analysis was completely invalidated - at least until such time as the City might have a legal agreement for the use of the additional five feet of paving that's on private property. b) Another part of this passage remains relevant to the assessment of Oakleigh Lane and is even more important with the knowledge that Oakleigh Lane has only 14-foot of paving width for a 250-foot segment. The PWD conclusion was based on a clear and explicit requirement, i.e., that the conclusion was valid only "provided the paved surface is not blocked by parked vehicles." We know for certainty that vehicles can and are PARKED LEGALLY within the right-of-way and on the paving of the 250-foot segment. Thus, the PWD statement implies the following conclusion, based on the actual facts: the existing paved surface in Oakleigh Street CANNOT continue to adequately provide for motorized and foot traffic, as well as for emergency vehicles and delivery services, because the paved surface may at times be blocked by legally parked vehicles. At the very least, the PWD report raises a critical issue that the Planning Commission has previously ignored and cannot properly continue to ignore. To put it bluntly: The Planning Commission will risk another remand if its Revised Final Order does not address the implications of LEGALLY PARKED vehicles on the constricted 250 foot segment. It also is unfortunate that the local Fire Marshal provided no assessment at all with respect to the ability of Oakleigh Lane to provide unimpeded access for fire trucks (LUBA II Rec 1293), since it is the Fire Marshall that has the most direct responsibility and expertise to ensure such unimpeded access. Lacking an assessment from the Fire Marshal, the Planning Commission must at least consider the Eugene Fire Code standards - not as an explicit standard that must be met, but rather as the best evidence of what national, state and local experts consider the minimum safe configuration of a fire apparatus access road. 7 However, City Council Resolution No. 4927 also required four-foot-wide sidewalks. Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 11 April 12, 2017