With that underlying understanding, the commissioners have two defensible alternatives; <br />A. Deny the application; or <br />B. Approve the application with the following. additional Conditions of Approval,6 <br />requiring that the applicantsubmit as part offinal.plat do-g.uments: <br />1. A 45-foot wide right of way or easement along the entire length of Oakleigh <br />Lane, dedicated to the City and/or County; <br />2. Construction plans for improvements to the road, as required by City and/or <br />County standards; and <br />3. County and/or City street construction permit(s) for the plans in item 2, above. <br />Substantial evidence that Oakleigh Lane is unsafe unless widened and improved <br />There is no dis ute that the projected cumulative traffic after the PUD would be, built would <br />nearly double the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Oakleigh Lane and put Oakleigh Lane at the <br />higher end of the City's ADT, range for a "Low Volume Residential Street."' <br />There is also no dispute that Oakleigh lane•is an unimproved, dead-end road, approximately <br />1,000 feet long from River Road to its current terminus. The road is partially under City of <br />Eugene control and partially under Lane County control. According to .a statement from Lane <br />County Public Works, the County is not required, and doesn't intend, to keep their portion of <br />the road in repair. <br />The Eugene portion is not an "adopted right-of-way" (PWD Referral Response, dated <br />September 17, 2013 at 10), which also means the City is not required, and doesn't intend, to <br />maintain their portion of the road because "the City does not maintain unimproved streets." <br />(Staff Report, dated September 2013, at 17) <br />Oakleigh Lane currently has a 20-foot right-of-way north of the official centerline, dedicated by <br />the adjacent property owners, but the right-of-way has not been adopted by either the City or <br />County. (Staff Report at 12 and PWD Response at 10) The 20-foot northern right-of-way is <br />exactly one half of the 40-foot right of way that is the City of Eugene standard for an "Access <br />Lane." (Eugene Code Table 9.6870 and 1999 Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan, "ACSP" <br />6 These necessary conditions are taken directly from the LUBA decision in Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham, <br />See page 3 of the attached LUBA decision. <br />The Hearings Official, however, relies directly on an erroneous figure for Average Daily Traffic:_ <br />"Even with the added trips attributable to the co-housing proposal, the ADT for Ookleigh will be closer to <br />400 ADT at most." (Decision at 27) <br />The correct figure is Average•Daily Traffic of 700. See Footnote 8, page 13 in the October 9, 2013 Testimony <br />("Conte 10/9"). It's quite clear, that despite the careful explanation in my October 9 testimony, the Hearings <br />Official confused the ITE "Average Daily Trip" volume (350 round trips) with the city standards "Average Daily <br />Traffic" volume (700 one-way trips). The Hearings Official's "400 ADT" reference was in relation to an Average <br />Daily Traffic number found on page 36 of the Design Standards and Guidelines For Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, <br />Bikeways and Accessways, November 1999 document. In otherwords, the Hearings Official relied on an <br />estimated traffic volume that was at least 40 percent less than the actual, undisputed projections. <br />Conte Testimony- December-5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 4 <br />260 <br />