Adopted City street standards require a 45-foot right-of-way and sidewalks (at least) to separate <br />pedestrians from traffic and maintain pedestrian's safety. That's what the Public Works staff <br />put in their report, saying correctly that <br />"Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the City's <br />minimum street design standards, and the 168 new vehicle trips per day generated by <br />the proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic <br />generated by the proposed development; will not be assured of safe access via Oakleigh <br />Lane." <br />That statement by the PWD staff is the simple truth, and the Planning Commission should not <br />abide attempts to circumvent the law and put people's safety at risk. <br />But there is one final expert opinion to which I hope commissioners will give particular weight. <br />Please read the letter from Maj Hutchinson (Attachment M, incorporated herein). After you <br />read Maj's letter, have a look at Maj and her young daughter walking down Oakleigh Lane in <br />the 2015August30PedestriansBicyclistAndVehicleSharingTheOakleighLanePavement.mp4 <br />video. <br />These are the citizens whose safety and well-being the Eugene Code is intended to protect and <br />promote, and you are responsible to ensure that your decisions are consistent with that <br />purpose. <br />CONCLUSION REGARDING THE SAFETY OF OAKLEIGH LANE <br />This isn't really that complicated a decision - it has been made so only by the facts and code <br />provisions that were kept hidden, the cursory Public Works staff conclusions presented as if it <br />were thorough "analysis, " and the transparent legal maneuvers to circumvent the plain <br />i <br />meaning of PUD approval criteria that require the only road into and out of the 29-unit <br />development to be safe, adequate and not increase risks to the public. <br />Every shred of code and evidence demands that the Planning Commission find that Oakleigh j <br />Lane would not be safe for current residents, future PUD residents and emergency personnel. <br />The proposed PUD does not come even close to meeting the requirements of EC 9.8320(5), (6) <br />and (11). <br />For these reasons, this application must be denied. <br />EPILOGUE - THE APPLICATION DOESN'T MEET OTHER CRITERIA <br />EC 9.8320(7) states: <br />Adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, or if public services and <br />facilities are not presently available, the applicant demonstrates that the services and <br />facilities will be available prior to need. Demonstration of future availability requires <br />evidence of at least one of the following: <br />(a) Prior written commitment of public funds by the appropriate public agencies. <br />I <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 16 August 31, 2015 <br />41 <br />