Eugene Planning Commission <br />May 3, 2017 <br />Page 2 of 10 <br />A. The Eugene Code Does Not Require Oakleigh Lane to Be Improved to <br />City Standards to Serve the Development. <br />On remand, the opponents do not challenge the Oakleigh Meadow PUD for <br />non-compliance with PUD standards. Instead, the opponents challenge Oakleigh <br />Lane for noncompliance with current street standards, and contend that "all of <br />Oakleigh Lane must meet the applicable street standard in EC 9.6800 through EC <br />9.6875 either currently or as a condition of approval." April 26, 2017 Letter from Paul <br />Conte to the Planning Commission. The opponents are wrong. <br />As the City of Eugene Public Works, the Hearings Official, this Planning <br />Commission and the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals have each explained, <br />Oakleigh Lane is not required to conform to current City street standards in order to <br />serve the PUD. As you explained in your prior decision affirming the approval of the <br />Tentative PUD : <br />[T]he PC agrees that neither EC 9.8320(5)(a) nor EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 <br />required that an existing street must meet certain standards in order to serve <br />a proposed development. EC 9.6870 only provides the required paving widths <br />for certain types of streets when and if those streets are ever fully improved to <br />City Standards. <br />Revised Final Order, p. 4 (Emphasis added). <br />LUBA affirmed your interpretation in Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of <br />Eugene, 70 Or LUBA 132,154 (2014): <br />Respondents respond that the planning commission's interpretation of EC <br />9.8320(5) is correct, and that nothing in EC requires the entirety of Oakleigh <br />Lane to meet the standards in EC 9.8320(5) in order for the PUD to be approved. <br />We agree with respondents. The plain language of EC 9.8320(5) requires the <br />city to determined "the PUD" meets the standards in (a). It does not require <br />"all streets serving the PUD" to meet the standards if those streets are not <br />located within the PUD. In addition, the EC 9.6870 requirements for right of <br />way widths apply to "dedicated" streets. It does not require Meadows to <br />dedicate right of way on land that it does not own or to improve land it does <br />not own. <br />(Emphasis added). It affirmed it again in Trautman v. City of Eugene, 73 Or LUBA 209, <br />227 (2016)("EC 9.8320(5)(a), when read in context with provisions referenced in it * * * <br />does not require the entirety of Oakleigh Lane to meet the standards in EC 9.6870 in <br />order for the PUD to be approved"). <br />The design and improvement of Oakleigh Lane will be determined based on the <br />standards in effect at the time that the street is brought up to City standards. In the <br />meantime, Oakleigh Meadow, LLC is dedicating that portion of the property located <br />