As addressed previously, the PC finds that the constitutional findings included in the staff report and <br />P referral comments (Pages 2-4 of Exhibit PH-30) were adopted to justify exaction from the applicant <br />f r that a portion of the sub'ect property the street. Those findings do not demonstrate that <br />0 Weigh Lane will be unsafe unless developed now. In fact other evidence in the recordspecifically <br />s noorts a conclusion that the street will be safe as currently improved even with the anticipated <br />A cordin I C„~, the PC finds that immediate improvements are not required of the development, <br />either abutting the development site, or on any part of Oakleigh Lane, based on the findings and <br />conclusions provided previously under the second assignment of error, which are incorporated here by <br />reference. <br />The PC affirms the HO's decision that Oakleigh Lane is a low-volume residential street under existing <br />and proposed conditions, as the street has not yet been designed and built to urban City standards and <br />the projected ADT is within the 250 to 750 range. The conditions imposed by the HO for right-of-way <br />dedication and irrevocable petition from the developer will ensure that the PUD contributes its <br />proportional share of the future local improvement. The PC finds the traffic generation to be consistent <br />with the proposed residential use, which is within the permissible density range. As such, the PC agrees <br />with the HO that the traffic generated by the development is not "significant" within the context of EC <br />9.8320(12). <br />The PC finds that the various trip generation estimates provided in the record do not change the <br />determination that Oakleigh Lane is a low-volume residential street. The PC finds that the HO did not <br />err in his conclusions that relied on ADT estimates, and the relevance of this alleged error is unclear in <br />the appeal statement as it does not identify any related approval criteria to which the argument <br />applies. The HO findings on pages 18-29 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of <br />compliance under the approval criterion appealed under this assignment of error. <br />The PC finds that the HO was correct in allowing the applicant's October 16, 2013 submittals into the <br />record, as they were responsive to evidence and argument submitted up to October 9, 2013, as <br />explained in the HO's decision. The PC also affirms the HO's Order Denying Reopening the Evidentiary <br />Record. The HO findings on pages 3-4 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of the <br />open record appealed under this assignment of error. <br />IV. CONCLUSION <br />The Eugene Planning Commission has reviewed the record and the assignments of error in the appeal, <br />and has voted to modify and affirm the decision of the Hearings Official to conditionally approve the <br />tentative PUD for Oakleigh Meadows Co-housing (PDT 13-1). Additional findings and modified <br />conditions of approval are provided in Section III of this Final Order; the modified conditions of <br />approval are also included below for reference. All other conditions imposed by the Hearings Official <br />remain applicable as set out in the Hearings Official's decision. <br />{00109077;1 } DRAFT Final Order Page 11 <br />