P Y, (Z-3 <br />October 16, 2013 <br />.City of Eugene <br />Planning and..Development Department <br />attn: gecky Taylor, Associate Planner <br />99 West 10th Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: Argument in Opposition of Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing Project-.Application PDT 13-1 <br />Dear Ms. Taylor: <br />The following letter presents:several arguments in opposition about evidence submitted.by the <br />applicant: for application PDT 13-1. References to the Neighbor Opposition Report (NOR) in this letter <br />refer to the NOR, prepared by the:0akleigh .Lane and. McClure Lane: neighbors arid. submitted to the <br />public. record. on act9`h. <br />Access Engineering letter, dated September 27, 2013 - <br />This letter Presents Peak:Hour Trip generation for the proposed CIVIC development which..has an <br />Institute of Transportation Engineers.(ITE) - specified trip generation: category,. The letterfocuses on <br />.peak_hou:r trips.and relies c the 100 trip per day threshold' for peak hour trips at the outlet of the <br />dev.eloprrieiV. It says.nothing about the average daily traffic (ADT) on Oakfeigh Lane. This may be <br />because the City=s staff report. classified Oakleigh Lane incorrectly and so. maybe they figured there was: <br />no nee to attempt to argue that the: road was'classified wrong. The focus on the letter was about the <br />.requirement of a'Traffic.Impact;.Analys s only, sub. part c of EC 9.8320 (S). There is no evidence in this <br />letter supporting.that Oakleigh Lane should be classified as a: low-volume residential road, nor is there <br />any evidence in the City Staff Report.statine that Caklei`gh Lane should be classified as 'a low-volume <br />residential road., The City:essentially ignored their own ordinance. and code on this issue. <br />The applicant has not presented enough evidence to- show that the additional traffic will be safe nor that. <br />itwill. [?e below the City's classification standards for an Access lane:. The opposition documents have <br />overw.helming.shown;that Oakl:eigh. Lane should be classified as an.a.ccess.lane. and. that the increase.,in <br />traffic from the proposed development will not be minimal', which it is supposed to.be according to PUD <br />code (sub part a and b of EC. 9.8320 (5)). All of that information in support of opposition was placed i,n <br />the,record- as-evidence prior to the Oct 9 deadline. <br />Rage 1 of 3 <br />457 <br />