Public Testimony (Opposition) - Laserfiche WebLink

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONFORMANCE & EXACTION intersection with River Road, a main thoroughfare). Among other deficiencies, Oakleigh Lane lacks any sidewalk, forcing pedestrians and wheelchair users moving between River Road and the PUD to share the narrow travel lane with motor vehicles, including emergency response vehicles. The EPC recognized that Oakleigh Lane presented a risk to future PUD residents (as well as current residents); and, based on Oakleigh Lane's deficiencies, the EPC found the following: a) For conformance with Eugene Code (EC) 9.8320(5)(a),3 "[i]t is in the public's interest to have Oakleigh Lane consist of 45 feet of right-of way [to allow improvements] through the development site's entry drive aisle and to consist of 33 feet beyond the drive aisle to the terminus of the street in order to ensure: safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists traveling on Oakleigh Lane (a low-volume street) [and] the efficient provision of emergency services * * "Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the City's minimum street design standards and the 164 new vehicle trips per day generated by the proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by the proposed development, will not be assured of safe access's via Oakleigh Lane. * * b) For conformance with the EC 9.6505(3)(b) criteria,5 "[t]he applicant shall submit an Irrevocable Petition for public improvements in Oakleigh Lane to include paving, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks,6 and street trees." [This applies only adjacent to the PUD site.] c) Oakleigh Lane would not, in its current condition, provide "safe and adequate pedestrian and bicyclist access" between River Road and the PUD, as required by EC 9.8320(5)(b).7 Without getting into contested details of these findings, the undisputed point is that the EPC found that Oakleigh Lane requires improvements to be safe for pedestrians. Opponents argued that, to safely separate pedestrians and motor vehicles, a sidewalk the entire length of Oakleigh 3 See Exhibit A. 4 Despite this explicit identification that "the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by the proposed development, will not be assured of safe access," city staff have made the ludicrous claim (and the Hearings Official and EPC went along) that this statement applied only to fitture needs for safety improvements. 5 See Exhibits A and B. Mandatory approval criterion EC 9.8320(10)(b) requires that the PUD complies with "EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards. 6 Although this irrevocable petition for improvements was necessitated by the finding for "safe and adequate" access for "traffic generated by the proposed development," the staff proposed deferring the actual improvements to some future and unlikely petition for a local improvement district by residents of Oakleigh Lane. 7 See Exhibit A. Page 12