• <br />October 16; X2.013: <br />Cityof Eugene. <br />Planning. and. bevel opment Department <br />attn.: BeckyTaylor, Associate. Planner <br />99 West 10i" Ayenue: <br />Eugene; OR. 97401 <br />Re:: Argument in Opposition of Oakleigh:Meadow Cohousing Project-.Application PDT 13-.1 <br />Dear M. s. Taylor; <br />The following letter presents several;.argurrients. in opposition "about evidence subnitted..by the. <br />a.pplicant,'forapplicatio:n PDT 134. Referencesao: the Neighbor Opposition: Report (NOR):in this letter <br />refer to the NOR,.prepared bythe.0akleigh Lane and: McClure Cane: rie.ighbors and. submitted to th& <br />public.reeord oh,QUt:9- . <br />Access:Engineeririg: letterdated:' 5e:pte ibe.r27,.20.13 <br />This letter. presents-Peak:Hoiar Trip generation for the. proposed::ONIC deve cibment:wh ch,.hti an <br />Institute of Transportation Engineers..([TE) - specified trip generafioon: category. The letter-focuses on <br />peak hour trips.and, relies`ortthe 100 trip per &v threshold` for peak .h:our trips at the outlet of the <br />developirieht It says nbthrng a.dout the av'erag'e daily-traffic (ADT) o i Ciakleigh La..ne. This may be <br />because th:e City's.staff report.classified:O.akle gh Lane incorrectly and so: maybe theyfigur:.ed there was: <br />no peed to attempt to. argue thatthe: road was c.lasstfi.ed wrong. Th.e focus on the lettet as about the. <br />requireni'ent of a Traffi.c.Impact.Anafys.'s only; sub part c ofiEC9.8320.(;5:). There is.no.evidence in:this <br />letter supportingthat Oakl`egh Lane should. be classified as a.low-volume residential road;, nor is the..re <br />any- evidence in the City Staff Report stating that Oakle gh Lane:shoul.d be.classtfre8 :as a low=yolurn:e <br />resident aGroad.. The City:essent[Ay. igno.re.d`theirown:.ordinance:and code.on'Ahis issue. <br />The applicant has not:.prese.nted enough eyidence.to:show'that:th addition:a[ traffic will-be safe northat <br />itwill be below the City's classification standards for an ':Access I ne:.'The op:posttion documents have <br />overwhelming showin. that OakI' ighi Lane should be class&d as an access Lane and; thatthe increase;. in <br />tra:ffic:from the proposed deveIopm.ent will not be minimal,, which it is supposed to:be according to PU0 <br />code (sub Dart a.and b of. EC 9_ .8320 All.of that information in support of opposition was piace:d [n. <br />-the:record-asevidence. priorto the Ott9 deadline. <br />• <br />Page.1 of 3' <br />457 <br />