Table 2.) The existing 20-foot right-of-way is even less than half the 45-foot right of way that is <br />the City of Eugene standard for a "Low Volume Residential Street." (Ibid.) <br />The road has an oil mat surface, 18 to 20 feet wide. (Applicant's letter from Access Engineering, <br />dated August 6, 2013; Staff Report at 12; and Lane County Referral Response dated August 29, <br />2013) This width is less than the City standard for any street type other than an alley, as <br />specified in EC Table 9.6870 and ACSP Table 2. <br />There is no dispute that Oakleigh Lane is far below the Eugene Code standard for a Low Volume <br />Residential Street, which requires a minimum 45-foot right-of-way and 20-foot wide paving. <br />Consistent with the Public Works Department Referral Response dated September 17, 2013 <br />("PWD"), the Hearings Official found:. <br />"EC9.6870 Street Width confirmsthat the required right-of-way width for Oakleigh Lane is 45 <br />feet, based on the street functioning as 'a Low-Volume Residential Street." (Decision at 198) <br />Neither the Hearings Official, nor the applicant nor any supporter of the application disputed <br />the following conclusion'by the Public Works Department professional staff that Oakleigh Lane <br />in its current configuration would not be safe after the increase in traffic that would arise if the <br />PUD were approved. <br />"It is in the public's interest to have Oakleigh Lane consist of 45 feet of right-of way <br />through the development site's entry drive aisle and to consist of 33 feet beyond the <br />drive aisle to the terminus of the street in order to ensure: safety for pedestrians, <br />bicyclists and motorists traveling on Oakleigh Lane (a low-volume street); the efficient <br />provision of emergency services; and that the proposed development and adjacent <br />properties are accessible via Oakleigh Lane." (Decision at 21) <br />Note that this conclusion correctly identifies that the projected traffic volume on Oakleigh Lane <br />will fall into the LowVolume Residential Street category after the PUD is developed; however, <br />the road won't come close to meeting the corresponding standards-.3 <br />The PWD findings go on to emphasize this requirement in no uncertain terms: <br />"Because 45 feet of right-of-way is the minimum amount of right-of-way necessary to <br />construct Oakleigh Lane in this manner as a low-volume street, the public interest in <br />a Despite getting the standard right here, under his findings for approval criterion EC 9.8320(5), the Hearings <br />official relies directly on an erroneous right-of-way minimum width: <br />"Whether or not Staff have miscategorized Oakleigh Lane as a low volume residential street, and the <br />Hearings Official does not agree that a mistake was made, is of no consequence because Table 9.6870 <br />shows right-of--ways in the range of 40' to 55'f or both access lanes and low volume residential streets." <br />(Decision at 25) <br />EC Table 9.6870 clearly shows the required right-of-way as 40' to 55' for an "Access Lane" and 45' to 55' for a <br />"Low Volume Residential" street. Thus, there is a "consequence" to how Oakleigh Lane would be categorized <br />after the PUD was built- specifically, a five foot greater right-of-way is required for a Low Volume Residential <br />Street. <br />9 Although there is disagreement about which category Oakleigh Lane currently falls into, the current classification <br />isn't the critical factor, and opponents' arguments do not depend on whether the current classification is <br />"Access Lane" or "Low Volume Residential Street" <br />Conte Testimony- December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 5 <br />2-61 <br />