COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTEXT <br />The plan provisions listed under EC 9.8320(1), above, provide context for applying the <br />more precise approval criteria in Eugene Code. In these policies and other plan <br />provisions, the comprehensive plan requires the City to balance increases in density <br />with adequate infrastructure, protection of livability and safety. Where livability and <br />safety would be diminished by an excessive number of dwellings, development must be <br />limited. <br />Such is the situation with the proposed Oakleigh Meadows Cohousing PUD. <br />In a case involving Eugene's comprehensive plan, LUBA found: <br />"Thus, even where a plan provision might not constitute an independently <br />applicable mandatory approval criterion, it may nonetheless represent a relevant <br />and necessary consideration that must be reviewed and balanced with other <br />relevant considerations, pursuant to ordinance provisions that require, as does <br />EC 9.8865(1)' and (2), consistency with applicable plan provisions." Bothman v. City <br />of Eugene, Or LUBA 701 (2006). <br />At the "10,000 foot level," the proposed development of 29 dwelling units does not <br />provide the balance intended by the comprehensive plan provisions because the <br />development would have substantially more dwelling units and substantially increase <br />vehicular traffic beyond levels that can reasonably be accommodated at the end of a <br />narrow, unmaintained, dead-end access lane. <br />By the City's own standards and testimony in the record, to safely and efficiently <br />handle the increased vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic arising from the proposed <br />29 dwelling units would require Oakleigh Lane to be a maintained local road with a 45- <br />foot right-of-way, 20-foot wide paving, with curbs, gutters and sidewalks and a <br />turnaround at the end of the road. <br />Meeting this standard is infeasible (and there is no evidence in the record to the <br />contrary); and, even if it were feasible, the burden of assessments to pay for the <br />improvements would fall disproportionately on the current abutting property owners, <br />despite the fact that it would be the impacts of the Oakleigh Meadows Cohousing <br />development that necessitated the improvements. Thus, not only does the proposed <br />development fail to reflect the comprehensive plan's intended balance of density and <br />livability, the result would lead to inconsistency with TransPlan Finance Policy #4 <br />requirement that "new development pay for its capacity impact on the transportation <br />system." <br />EC 9.8865(1) states: "The proposed [zone] change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The <br />written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or <br />inconsistencies exist." <br />October 9, 2013 Conte testimony re PUD 13-1 3 1 P a g e <br />