Planning Commission Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

proposed development site is neither adjacent to, nor responsible for, any vision clearance areas at the intersection of Lombard Street and Fir Lane. The Planning Commission also finds that the Hearings Official did not err in determining that "development site" does not include off-site intersections, nor is the development creating any new intersections. Therefore, EC 9.8670 is not applicable to the application. Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. Appeal Issue V. The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made inadequate findings not based on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.6815(2)(f). Hearings Official's Decision EC 9.6815(2)(f) states: EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets. (2) Street Connectivity Standards (f) In cases where a required street connection would result in the extension of an existing street that is not improved to city standards and the street has an inadequate driving surface, the developer shall construct a temporary barrier at the entrance to the unimproved street section with provision for bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle access. The barrier shall be removed by the city at the time the existing street is improved to city standards or to an acceptable standard adopted by the public works director. In making a determination of an inadequate driving surface, the public works director shall consider the street rating according to Eugene's Paving Management System and the anticipated traffic volume. On page 17, the Hearings Official agrees with the Applicant's traffic engineer and City Public Works staff that, while Lombard Street is not in perfect condition or improved to City standards, it does not appear to be "inadequate." As such, EC 9.6815(2)(f) does not apply and a temporary barrier is not required. Summary of Appellants' Argument Appellants state that the Hearings Official erred in applying EC 9.6815(2)(f)-the Applicant should be required to install a temporary barrier at the entrance to Lombard Street from the development's southern edge. On page 4 and 5 of the appeal statement, Appellants argue that Lombard Street shows "significant deteriorations of the surface and pavement distress, crumbling, and lack of drainage facilities." Accordingly, the surface must be declared "inadequate" for the purposes of EC 9.6815(2)(f), and furthermore, no evidence in the record establishes the "adequacy" of the street. Planning Commission's Determination The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err in determining that the Final Order: Lombard Apartments (WG 18-3 / SR 18-3 / ARA 18-8) Page 10