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

• ODOT Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, June 2001 OSHA publication 3256-09R 2015: Fire Service Features if Buildings and Fire Protection Systems County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health publication: Best Practices - Emergency Access in Healthy Streets o) Most of the above documents also specify or recommend against excessively long cul- de-sacs with no connectivity to streets other than the one street off which the cul-de-sac runs. p) Most of the above documents also specify or recommend sidewalks to separate motorized and non-motorized traffic. (No credible authority has been cited that suggests mixing motorized and non-motorized traffic would avoid or minimize risks. 12) The preponderance of evidence is compelling that Oakleigh Lane in the configuration approved by the Revised Final Order cannot conform to EC 9.8320(6) and the Planning Commission cannot reasonably or defensibly approve the application on remand with that same configuration allowed. OAKLEIGH LANE MUST HAVE ADEQUATE PAVING AND SIDEWALKS TO ENSURE CONFORMANCE TO EC 9.8320(6) Based on the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission must either deny the PUD application or impose conditions of approval related to Oakleigh Lane that would ensure the application conforms to EC 9.8320(6) prior to issuance of any building permits for the development site. Based on the City's adopted street standards, land use code standards and other reliable and relevant standards, as well as expert testimony, Oakleigh Lane must meet at least the following requirements for its entire length from River Road to the eastern extent of the entry to the proposed PUD in order for the application to conform to EC 9.8320(6): 12 The PWD report included the following statement under the evaluation of conformance with EC 9.8020(11)(b): "As is typical for unimproved local streets in the River Road area, i.e., those streets which do not have paving, curb & gutter and sidewalks or which have not been striped to identify dedicated travel lanes; the- expectation is that pedestrians and bicyclists will share the paved surface with vehicles." - LUBA II Rec 1268 In classic "bureaucratic speak," this statement doesn't identify exactly who has such an "expectation" or whether commissioners should be comforted or alarmed by the conjectured "expectation." In any case such a vacuous statement does not represent any assessment at all regarding risk, and cannot reasonably be cited as if it were a professional opinion that "shared use" of Oakleigh Lane presents minimal risk. For one thing, other similar lanes close by do not have any development comparable to the proposed 29 condominiums at their terminus. Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 17 April 12, 2017