The statement has wrong number of residential lots - there are only 22, counting the <br />development lot TL 400 and the vacant lot to the north, TL 200. Only 19 of these are <br />developed, all with one single-family, detached dwelling. <br />In the rest of the Staff Report, the findings and conditions related to Oakleigh Lane are <br />based on the Low-Volume Residential Street minimum right-of-way width. However, <br />it's important to understand that this is five feet greater than the minimum right-of-way <br />width for an Access Lane. Furthermore, the 20-foot right-of-way dedication from the <br />properties on the north side of Oakleigh Lane is completely adequate for their "half" of <br />Oakleigh Lane as a fully-improved Access Lane. On the other hand, with the additional <br />traffic from the PUD, and the commensurate 45-foot right-of-way, an additional 21h feet <br />would have to be dedicated from all the properties bordering on the north. <br />Under this section, the Staff Report provides a clear statement that Oakleigh Lane must <br />be improved to Low Density Residential Street standards to adequately and safely <br />handle the additional resident vehicle trips, emergency vehicles and the current and <br />additional pedestrians and bicyclists. See the "Findings by City of Eugene Planning and <br />Public Works Department Staff" section, above, for a complete discussion. <br />EC 9.8320(5)(b) <br />The Staff Report states: <br />"With regard to bicycles and pedestrians traveling westward on Oakleigh Lane <br />toward transit services on River Road, referral comments from Public Works staff <br />state that, for unimproved local streets in the River Road area (i.e., streets that lack <br />sidewalks and have not been striped to identify dedicated travel lanes), the <br />expectation is that pedestrians and bicyclists will share the paved surface with <br />vehicles. Additionally, there is a tendency on dead end streets such as Oakleigh <br />Lane, for motorists to travel at slower, more cautious speeds, because of the <br />perceived narrowness of the street." <br />Despite the statement above, there are no comments in the Public Works Referral <br />Comments regarding EC 9.8320(5)(b). Instead, the statements in the Staff Report seem to <br />be taken from Public Works Referral Comments about EC 9.8320(11)(b) (See pages 14 <br />and 15.) <br />Nonetheless, the conclusion that "the expectation is that pedestrians and bicyclists will <br />share the paved surface with vehicles" has no relevance to demonstrating consistency <br />with the EC 9.8320(5) requirement that "the PUD provides safe and adequate <br />transportation" for pedestrians and bicyclists. Quite obviously, because there are no <br />sidewalks, bike lanes or adequate right-of-way, everyone travelling down Oakleigh <br />Lane, no matter by which mode, will "expect" to share the road. They may also <br />reasonably "expect" that young children, especially, may be at a much greater risk <br />October 9, 2013 Conte testimony re PUD 13-1 141 P a g e <br />