AttachmentA <br />EugenePlanningCommission <br />December 11, 2013 <br />Page3 <br />There is no challenge tothe exactionfindingsthemselves inthis case. That wouldbean <br />argument that an applicant would typicallymake to fight theC <br />dedicate land tothe public. The gi <br />exaction findings (referenced above) demonstrate that neitherOakleigh Lane nor the bike/ped <br />path will besafeunless theyareimproved, and unlessOakleigh Laneis improvedall thewayto <br />the eastend ofthesubject property. TheHearings Official concludes thatthe exactionfindings <br />cannot bereadtosay thatthe existingroadway is not safe, Decision at27, and concludesthatthe <br />existing paved surface provides safepassage ofvehicles. Decision at 26. That finding isbased <br />onevidence in the PW Referral Comments. Regarding the need for Oakleigh Laneto be <br />immediately improved, PublicWorks staffstated: <br />pavedsurface, but hasnot beenimprovedto city standards, lacking curbs and gutters, <br />storm drainage, sidewalks, and streettrees. Asis typicalfor unimprovedlocal streets in <br />theRiver Roadarea, i.e., thosestreets whichdo nothave paving, curb & gutter and <br />sidewalks orwhich have not been striped to identify dedicated travel lanes; the <br />expectation is thatpedestrians and bicyclists will share thepaved surfacewith vehicles. <br />Additionally, there is atendency on dead end streetssuchas Oakleigh, formotorists to <br />travel at slower, more cautious speeds, because ofthe perceivednarrowness ofthe street. <br />Until such time that property owners elect to improve Oakleigh Lane tofull City <br />standards, including sidewalks, theexistingpaved surface inOakleigh Street will <br />continue to adequately provide for motorized and foot traffic, as well as for emergency <br />vehicles anddelivery services, provided the paved surface isnot blocked byparked <br />vehicles. Since the existingpaved surface providessafe passagefortwo-wayvehicular <br />traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles, andsince there is nothing to <br />suggest that the impacts of the proposed development will result inunsafe conditions in <br />Oakleigh Lane, it is appropriate to defer public improvements viaan irrevocable <br />30 at 14). <br />To address Assignment of Error 10.A., the Planning Commission has todecide whether <br />the Hearings Official erred in concluding that the Dolan findings do not determine that vehicle, <br />bike and pedestrian traffic along Oakleigh Lane will be unsafeunless the full length of Oakleigh <br />Lane is improved now. <br />ACD:abm <br />00108854;1 } <br />296