It's important to note'that the application fails to meet the specific approval criteria <br />covered in the following sections; and this testimony does not rest on the <br />comprehensive plan provisions alone. However, the Hearings Official must <br />nevertheless evaluate and balance plan provisions in his findings and decision. <br />The appropriate action is to deny this application with findings that may help the <br />applicants design a revised cohousing proposal with fewer dwellings so that the traffic <br />impacts are reduced and the relevant criteria are met.z <br />OAKLEIGH LANE CHARACTERISTICS & CLASSIFICATION <br />Oakleigh Lane is an unimproved, dead-end road partially under City of Eugene control <br />and partially under Lane County control. According to a statement from Lane County <br />Public Works, Oakleigh Lane is a "local access road," which is "not a County road"; and <br />the County is not required, and doesn't intend, to keep their portion of the road in <br />repair. (See Attachment A.) <br />The Eugene portion is not an "adopted right-of-way" (Public Works Referral Response, <br />September 17, 2013m "PWRP" at 10), which also means the City is not required, and <br />doesn't intend, to maintain their portion of the road because "the City does not <br />maintain unimproved streets." (Eugene Planning Staff Report, dated September 2013, <br />"SR," at 17) <br />Oakleigh Lane currently has a 20-foot right-of-way north of the official centerline, <br />dedicated by the adjacent property owners (but the right-of-way has not been adopted <br />by either the City or County). (SR at 12 and PWPR at 10) The 20-foot northern right-of- <br />way is exactly half of the 40-foot right of way that is the City of Eugene standard for an <br />"Access Lane." (1999 Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan, "ASCP," Table 2 in <br />Attachment B) <br />The road has an oil mat surface, 18 to 20 feet wide. (Access Engineering Letter, August <br />6, 2013; SR at 12; and Lane County referral e-mail in Attachment A) This width is less <br />than the standard for any street type other than an alley, as specified in ASCP Table 2, <br />excerpted below. <br />z Although it has no direct bearing on the decision in this case, my preliminary analysis indicates that the estimated <br />traffic from about 12 attached dwelling units would fall under the threshold for "minimal impacts" by a) reducing <br />the ratio of future to current trip generation, and b) not requiring Oakleigh Lane to be reclassified from an "Access <br />Lane" to a "Local Residential Street," which requires an unfeasible increase in the right-of-way width . <br />October 9, 2013 Conte testimony re PUD 13-1 4 1 P a g e <br />