obtaining a promise from the, applicant to pay for paving and sidewalks along only that <br />final, short segment, sometime in the indefinite future. <br />A majority of Planning Commissioners would have to agree with these apparently conflicting <br />conclusions by the Hearings Official in order to affirm the decision. <br />What this testimony will show is that, despite ample "hand-waving" around this issue, the <br />Hearings Official never adequately squared these conclusions, which on their face appear to be <br />inconsistent. <br />Instead, the Hearings Official attempted to "compartmentalize" the PWD's lengthy findings that <br />were provided as justification for "exacting" a 50-foot right-of-way from the development site's <br />northern side ("Conditions 3 and 4" on page 63 of the Decision) and requiring an irrevocable <br />petition for improvements to Oakleigh Lane adjacent to the development site ("Condition 7" on <br />the same page). Relying on this compartmentalization, the Hearings Official then explicitly <br />declined to even consider the PWD analysis and conclusions for any of the other approval <br />criteria cited in the Appeal Statement. <br />To begin with, the Hearings Official, with no reservations, accepted and incorporated PWD <br />findings that "[w]ithout the additional right-of-way, Oakleigli Lane cannot be improved to the <br />City's minimum street design standards' and the 1642 new vehicle trips per day generated by <br />the proposed-development, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated <br />by the proposed development, will not be assured of safe access via Oakleigh Lane. 113 <br />But throughout the Decision, the Hearings Official completely ignored these PWD findings. He <br />explained his justification for ignoring the PWD findings most clearly in the following statement: <br />"As to Mr. Conte's assertion that the Staff's own findings concede that pedestrian and . <br />bicycle traffic will not be assured safe use of Oakleigh Lane, the Hearings Official <br />disagrees. PT-4. The statement Mr. Conte alights on is a finding related to explaining <br />the justification for the dedication required under EC 9.8320(5)(a). Staff's conclusions <br />are properly understood to require the proposed PUD to dedicate sufficient right-of-way <br />along the subject property's frontage to allow Oakleigh Lane to be brought up to the low <br />volume residential street standard along that frontage. That is consistent with requiring <br />the proposed PUD to meet current street design standards rather than allowing the <br />development to access Oakleigh Lane in its current form. The Hearings Official agrees <br />with the applicant's conclusion that there is no inconsistency in the Staff's findings." <br />(Decision at 27) <br />1 Which are specified in Eugene Code Table 9.6870, and which require a minimum 45-foot right-of-way and 20- <br />foot paving width for a "Low Volume Residential Street." <br />The correct number of projected new round trips is 168 or 169, not 164. The Hearings Official erroneously relied <br />upon the applicant's use of 28 dwelling units, despite having found that the development comprises 29 dwelling <br />units. (Decision at 35) The correct calculation is 29 units x 5.81 round trips per unit =168.49. <br />3 'The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staffs findings for EC 9.8320(5) and adopts those findings by this <br />reference - consistent with the findings below." (Decision at 24) <br />Conte Testimony- December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 2 <br />258 . <br />