• <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 10 <br />way widths apply to "dedicated" , streets. It does not require Meadows to <br />dedicate right of way on land that it does not own or to improve land it does <br />not own." LUBA Opinion, p. 31. - <br />On remand, the opponents continue to allege "asserted or imagined <br />transportation threats" which do not bear on these factors. Most of these center <br />around the faulty assertion that Oakleigh Lane is unsafe because it is not improved <br />along its entire length to City standards under EC 9.8320(5)(a) and EC 9.6870. As has <br />been addressed in detail above, there is not requirement in EC 9.8320(5)(a) or EC <br />9.6870 that "existing streets" be improved to current City standards. - <br />With regard to EC 9.8320(5)(b), neighbors have often asserted that the modest <br />levels of traffic associated with the development will result in decreased traffic safety <br />for pedestrians and cyclists that use Oakleigh Lane. However, as explained by <br />Licensed Professional Traffic Engineer Michael Weishar, "additional trips do not mean <br />an increased hazard" on Oakleigh Lane. As Traffic Engineer Weishar observed: <br />"The traffic impacts from this -proposal would be just 168 average daily trips <br />As a low-volume residential street, Oakleigh Lane can safely accommodate <br />between 250 and 750 average daily trips. Combining traffic from Oakleigh <br />Meadow with the 21 existing single-family homes on Oakleigh Lane, which are <br />• equivalent to 210 daily trips, the total would be 378 daily trips, well within the <br />range for a low-volume residential street."' August 27, 2015 Letter from Michael <br />Weishar to Planning Commission, p.1. <br />Moreover, Traffic Engineer Weishar goes on to explain that Oakleigh is not unsafe <br />because its not improved as a City street: <br />"Comments to the Planning Commission also confuse the issue of safety with <br />the issue if street improvements. Oakleigh Lane is adequate to safely <br />accommodate all existing and future trips. It has more than adequate capacity <br />to handle the low traffic volume from the PUD. In addition, there is no crash <br />history on Oakleigh Lane or at its intersection with River Road that would <br />indicated any existing. safety issue. I have reviewed -crash records in the <br />Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Crash Reporting & Analysis <br />Unit and City records as well, and find no reported crashes on Oakleigh Lane, <br />McClure .Lane, or at their intersections with River Road. <br />'The opponents urge that the City uses a different measures of ADT to project <br />"average daily trips" on Oakleigh Lane than the ITE standard used by Mr. Weishar. <br />September 4, 2015 Appeal Testimony, p. 7. However, this assertion is baseless. Both the <br />City of Eugene Public Works and Mr. Weishar_rely on the same ITE standard to <br />calculate "average daily trips." See September 17, 2013 Memorandum from Ed Haney to <br />Becky Taylor, p. 3 & 4 (relying on ITE trips generation to project "average daily trips" <br />from the proposed development on Oakleigh Lane). <br />313 <br />433 <br />