YES, THERE IS AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM <br />There is now a survey by a licensed surveyor that establishes reliably that a substantial portion <br />Oakleigh Lane pavement lies on private property, outside the public right-of-way. (See <br />Attachment C, as well as Attachment D.) Along the 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane <br />immediately west of the development site, the pavement on public right-of-way narrows to as <br />little as 13.7 feet. For perspective, this is less than the City's minimum requirement for <br />pavement of a one-way alley. Neighborhood residents regularly and legally park their cars on <br />the areas of private property that have pavement. Thus, it's not a mere technicality that the <br />pavement isn't 19 feet wide in the right-of-way - the cars parked on the pavement reduce the <br />"clear passage" width of the pavement to approximately 14 to 16 feet along this stretch of <br />Oakleigh Lane. <br />The situation along this same stretch is exacerbated because the right-of-way on the north side <br />is obstructed by cars that regularly park on gravel in the right-of-way. (See accompanying video <br />file 2015August30TruckLeavingOakleighLaneResidence.mp4.) According to Eugene Parking <br />Enforcement staff, this is legal. (See Attachment F, incorporated herein.) Thus, the unobstructed <br />right-of-way itself is narrowed by several feet to approximately 16 to 17 feet. (See accompanying <br />video file 17August20l5videoOfOakleighLane.mp4.) <br />These facts are now reliably established and cannot be ignored by the Planning Commission. <br />§ These facts require the Planning Commission to find that Oakleigh Lane does not in its <br />current condition provide a "safe and adequate transportation system, as required by EC <br />9.8320(5). <br />These facts require the Planning Commission to find that the additional traffic that <br />would be generated by residents of the proposed PUD would present a risk to public <br />safety, specifically by impeding emergency vehicles on Oakleigh Lane in its current <br />condition, thus conflicting with EC 9.8320(6). In addition, these facts establish that the <br />narrow clear passage width presents a risk to pedestrians and bicyclists who must ride <br />in same pathway as vehicles, as demonstrated in the video file <br />2015August30PedestriansBicyclistAndVehicleSharingTheOakleighLanePavement.mp4. <br />§ These facts require the Planning Commission to find that Oakleigh Lane in its current <br />condition lacks adequate pavement in the public right-of-way, as well as improvements <br />such as sidewalks, to meet City Standards, as required by EC 9.8320(11)(b). <br />These findings would be sufficient to deny the PUD application outright, and that is the right <br />course of action to take. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 4 August 31, 2015 <br />29 <br />