Eugene Hearing Official <br />April 6, 2018 <br />Page 19 <br /> <br />Initially, all three parts of this standard are prefaced by the phrase <br />of the standards in the subparts, then the standard as a whole is not clear and objective and may <br />not be applied. If, in contrast, the standard is correctly read as being implemented only through <br />the more particular standards listed in (a), (b) and (c), then the focus should be on the <br />substandards in nd <br />as a whole is not clear enough to be applied. <br /> <br />The applicant believes that the standard as a whole is sufficiently ambiguous that it should not be <br />applied at all. <br /> <br /> <br />Looking to the individual subparts of this standard: <br /> <br />EC 9.8320(5)(a): EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and <br />Other Public Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (10) below). <br /> <br />1. The Staff Report, at pages 25 through 30, slogs through about 14 different standards for <br />streets, alleys and other public ways, based on the comments incorporated by Public Works, and <br />it finds compliance without the need for any further right of way dedication or special setback <br />standards. The HO should endorse the findings of compliance in the Staff Report. <br /> <br />The Staff relies heavily on the December 8 Memorandum from City Engineer Scott Gillespie, <br />PE, which is Attachment F to the Staff Report. That memo reviews the development proposal <br />for compliance with city road standards, in particular the adequacy of Capital Drive and Spring <br />Blvd. <br /> Gillespie memo concluded: <br /> <br />existing roadway system is safe and adequate to serve. I have also reviewed the <br />roadway system and conclude there is no evidence to suggest the existing <br />roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site. Therefore, City <br />transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development and no <br />offsite mitigation is required. <br /> <br />2. Opponents take issue with the Staff Report and City Engineer supporting analysis. The thrust <br />r <br /> The applicant believes that opponents misunderstand the nature of the standard. It <br />code standards that are referenced in EC 9.8320(5)(a). That is the analysis conducted by the <br />applicant and the City Engineer and summarized in the Staff Report. The development proposal <br /> it will <br /> <br /> <br />