13--e-d /CV 5/13 <br />Hello, my name is Rich Dambrov and I am a resident of Oakleigh Lane. I am, speaking <br />on behalf of my family (my wife and 2 children) in opposition-to the proposal. Specifically, I am <br />addressing the impacts related to safe and adequate transportation that will result from the <br />proposed Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing development on the local neighborhood. <br />A Traffic Impact Analysis is required, however, in his decision, the HO- failed to do so. <br />According to EC 9.8320(5), "the PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems", <br />specifically related to pedestrian and bicycle circulation to "adjacent and nearby residential <br />areas." In reality, however, the safety of Oakleigh Lane as a whole is compromised by this <br />decision that fails to even consider the traffic impacts that 28 new units at the end of our street <br />will have on its residents. Despite the fact that Oakleigh Lnis documented by the city as "a <br />location where pedestrian and/or bicycle safety is a concern" as stated in EC 9.8 the HO <br />found that no Traffic Impact Analysis was required. The public works depaaiment analysis in the <br />staff report documents City concerns over pedestrian safety on Oakleigh Ln which, according to <br />the code previously quoted, would require a Traffic Impact Analysis. The required analysis of <br />Oakleigh Lane would supply evidence needed for this important piece of the PUD and <br />information related to the major traffic safety concerns being raised by those opposed to the <br />proposal. <br />The Traffic Impact Analysis of Oakleigh Lane, required of the PUD and limited <br />specifically to impacts on neighboring residential units, would reveal a staggering impact. For <br />example, I live halfway down Oaldeigh Ln. There are 10 residential units between my house and <br />the end of the street. If the development is approved and constructed as proposed, I will see <br />traffic from an additional 28 plus units. Basing traffic volume on number of total housing units, <br />this would be an almost 300 percent increase in traffic volume in front of my house and well <br />over 100 percent increase to the Oakleigh Lane residents as awhole. Without road <br />improvements, the PUD proposal poses a significant risk to myself, my family, the many <br />pedestrians and bicyclists that currently use Oakleigh Lane, as well as the movement of vehicles <br />that would be impeded by the increased traffic flow on our narrow lane. <br />If the PUD is accepted, Oakleigh Lane would become a traffic thruway for the many <br />residents of and countless visitors to the development. Oakleigh Lane residents should not have <br />to pay for improvements -to 'the road for safety when, after con siruciion, traffic safety impacts <br />and incidents make it clear that the PUD did not fully account for safe and adequate <br />transportation adjacent to and nearby the site. Eugene code 9.8320(5)(b) requires the applicant <br />to provide a safe and adequate transportation system specifically "to adjacent and nearby" areas. <br />In the HO decision, a 45 ft. right of way was required onsite of the applicant due to "public <br />interest in safe vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle travel and emergency response" being at risk. <br />No si'ilar conditions were required, however, for the rest of the street adjacent to and nearby the <br />site. If this right of way is required onsite, then it should also be required off site to mitigate the <br />same risks to my family and I as well as my neighbors on Oakleigh Ln that will be similarly <br />impacted. Therefore, to fully meet the intended criteria of this code, safe and adequate <br />297 <br />