The Staff Report states (SR at 12): <br />"EC 9.6870 Street Width confirms that the required right-of-way width for Oakleigh <br />Lane is 45 feet, based on the street functioning as a Low-Volume Residential Street. <br />Public Works staff confirms that there are currently 25 residential tax lots along <br />Oakleigh Lane, and with the addition of 29 dwelling units proposed by the subject <br />development, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) would be greater than 500 trips per <br />day, which is within the expected 250-750 ADT range for low-volume streets." <br />And later (SR at 15): <br />the additional 29 residential units will increase the number of structures that <br />access this Oakleigh Lane by over 100 percent. The construction of the new <br />(structures [sic] will result in an increase of vehicular traffic onto Oakleigh Lane by <br />approximately 164 new vehicular trips per day.6 See Trip Generation Manual from <br />the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Residential Condo / Townhouses <br />(Category 230)." <br />These statements have several errors or unclear items. First, Oakleigh Lane currently <br />functions as an "Access Lane," not a "Low-Volume Residential Street," as explained in <br />the "Oakleigh Lane Characteristics & Classification" section, above. The required right- <br />of-way for Oakleigh Lane is thus only 40 feet under current traffic volume.' <br />With the additional traffic projected to be generated by PUD, however, Oakleigh Lane <br />would have to handle traffic volumes within the range requiring the street to be <br />upgraded to "Low-Volume Residential Street" standards, including a 45-foot right-of- <br />way. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates, the projected Average Daily <br />Traffic (City-ADT) with the additional 29 dwelling units would actually be 700, which is <br />at the very top of "Low-Volume Residential Street" range.8 <br />° See Footnote 3 for an explanation of ITE-ADT versus City-ADT. In this case, the correct 1DE-ADT figure is 169, <br />not 164, representing an increase of 90 percent, not "over 100 percent." <br />In the Public Works Referral Comments at page 10, staff states: <br />"The low-volume classification is consistent with the determination for other similar dead end streets located <br />east of River Road and north or south of Oakleigh, that were also identified as low-volume streets in recent <br />land use decisions." <br />This statement is impossible to validate because there is no reference to any specific land use decision, nor to the <br />evidence relied upon in the decisions, nor to the similarities or differences between the various streets. As such, <br />this statement does not meet the criterion as evidence that can be relied upon in a determination of the actual <br />designation of Oakleigh Lane. The statement from Lane County Public Works and the actual characteristics of <br />Oakleigh Lane, on the other hand, are reliable and probative. <br />a Note that the ITE Average Daily Trips (ITE-ADT) is the number of round-trips, whereas the City's Average <br />Daily Traffic (City-ADT) is the number of one-way trips. Since Oakleigh is a dead-end, the value for City-ADT is <br />simply twice the value for ITE-ADT. The previous section on "Trip Generation & Traffic Impacts" presented <br />accurate estimates for ITE-ADT, which were 181 for the 19 current dwellings and 169 for the PUD's 29 <br />dwellings, for a combined total of 350 ITE-ADT. That estimate is equivalent to 700 City-ITE, which is <br />significantly greater than the Staff Report states. There is no explanation for how staff came up with the lower <br />number. <br />October 9, 2013 Conte testimony re PUD 13-1 13 1 P a g e <br />