14 <br />1 parked cars and pedestrians, or of an increase in those conflicts due to the <br />2 PUD's modest increase in traffic.4 Moreover, even if there were evidence of <br />3 existing conflicts (and there is not), "illegal parking" by the neighbors would <br />4 not support the constitutional requirements for additional right-of-way <br />5 dedication by OMC under EC 9.8320(5). The PUD already provides 47 parking <br />6 spaces on site, which is more than adequate to meet the parking needs of its <br />7 residents under the Eugene Code. Rec. 1036; EC 9.6410(3). Accordingly, the <br />8 intervenor's speculation provides no basis to reverse or remand the decision. <br />9 1D. OMC was not required to conduct a TIA. <br />10 The intervenor argues under his fourth subassignment of error that OMC <br />11 was required to perform a TIA under EC 9.8670, based on City public works <br />12 staff's "documented" concern over pedestrian and bicyclist safety on Oakleigh <br />13 Lane. Brief, p. 29-30.5 However, public works staff made it very clear that a <br />14 TIA was not required under EC 9.8670, and that it had no concern regarding <br />15 traffic safety issues: <br />4 In fact, there is substantial evidence in the record that Oakleigh Lane's <br />configuration reduces travel speeds. As noted by public works staff, the <br />perceived narrowness of the street would reduce travel speeds because motorist <br />tend to "travel at slower more cautious speeds." Rec. 1268. The intervenor <br />takes issue with this evidence, but cites to no countervailing evidence in the <br />record. Moreover, the City of Eugene's Arterial and Collector Street Plan <br />actually uses narrow streets as a "safe method to reduce speeds and non-local <br />traffic." Rec. 894. <br />s The intervenor again urges that public work staff findings supporting the road <br />dedication are "documented" safety concerns. Brief, p. 30. However, he <br />identifies no documented safety concerns in these findings. <br />