sac that has only about 14' of paving in the public right-of-way, whereas Table 9.6870 Right-of- <br />Way and Paving Widths requires 20' to 28'. This segment also has only a 20' right-of-way, <br />whereas the code requires 45' to 55'. <br />There are two questions that remain for the Planning Commission to evaluate and adopt <br />findings to address: <br />1. Does the land use code require (i.e., de jure) that a new PUD development served by <br />only a single, long, dead-end street be approved only if the street meets the code's <br />right-of-way and paving standards? <br />Regardless whether Eugene Code 9.8320(5) explicitly requires such a street to meet <br />the standards, do those standards nevertheless provide the de facto standard the <br />street must meet to conform to EC 9.8320(6) unless the applicant can prove - based on <br />reliable evidence in the record - that the street can nevertheless: a) not pose any significant <br />risk, and b) would not be an impediment to emergency response. <br />The first question is addressed thoroughly in pages 6 through 26 of Exhibit K. The extensive <br />traffic engineer's report (Exhibit E) substantially supports the referenced arguments, <br />particularly why the paving of this sole access street must meet the 20-foot minimum paving <br />standard in order to be "safe and adequate," as EC 9.8320(6) requires. <br />The second question is just as important, and in fact is exactly the rationale that <br />commissioners relied upon when they addressed EC 9.8320(6) in the prior Revised Final Order: <br />"The City's street design standards, adopted by the City Council, indicate that a 14' <br />paving width will ensure unimpeded emergency response." <br />The problem with this finding, of course is that the actual adopted minimum paving width is <br />not 14', but rather 20' for two-way traffic without parking and 21' for a "queuing street." Thus, <br />to remain consistent with this rationale, the commissioners must now revise or replace this <br />finding for EC 9.8320(6) to state accurately: <br />"The City's street design standards, as well as the land use code, both having been <br />adopted by the City Council, indicate that a 20' paving width will ensure unimpeded <br />emergency response, as long as the paving is entirely free from obstructions, such as <br />parked vehicles." <br />EUGENE CODE 9.8320(7) <br />ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES <br />CANNOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUD VIA OAKLEIGH LANE. <br />Eugene Code 9.8320(7) provides the most direct standard for safe, unimpeded emergency <br />response via Oakleigh Lane: <br />(7) Adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, or if public services <br />and facilities are not presently available, the applicant demonstrates that the <br />services and facilities will be available prior to need. Demonstration of future <br />availability requires evidence of at least one of the following: <br />Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 20 April 12, 2017 <br />