After making another thinly-veiled attempt to smear Oakleigh Lane residents by claiming <br />"there is some speculation that neighbors could intentionally obstruct as much as six feet of the <br />improved street surface,"5 Mr. Weishar makes the untenable claim that "even assuming that <br />only 13 feet of the street were available for travel by the public for 250 feet, this would be <br />adequate to accommodate emergency vehicles, and two-way vehicle travel in the same fashion <br />as a queuing street. <br />Mr. Weishar seems to have overlooked that a "queue" is defined as "a waiting line, especially of <br />persons or vehicles."' <br />Based on this comment, it appears Mr. Weishar's solution to a major fire engulfing PUD <br />townhouses would be for the fire fighters to await their turn to move forward on this supposed <br />13-foot wide "queuing street." <br />Obviously, this "solution" bears further dissection. No matter how long the fire fighters wait on <br />a 13 foot wide section of Oakleigh Lane, they aren't going to get past a 6-foot wide car in front of <br />them. As explained above, a queuing street needs to have - at a minimum - a pavement width <br />that can accommodate at least two lanes - one reserved for travel and the other with parking <br />and sections reserved for pullovers. Thirteen feet won't accommodate that configuration, not to <br />mention that all this talk about a "queuing street" should have no bearing on the Planning <br />Commission's decision because Oakleigh Lane is simply not configured as a queuing street of <br />any sort. <br />HEADED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION <br />Mr. Weishar caps off his analysis by pointing out that "excessive parking" - without explaining <br />what "excessive" would mean, when the parking is legally permitted - could require a fire <br />truck to have to back down the street upon leaving the site. Mr. Weishar left out of his analysis <br />any consideration of a much more serious condition - a fire truck might have to back down the <br />street as it was attempting to reach the site in order to let oncoming cars get by. <br />In addition, Mr. Weishar omitted any analysis of the possible scenario in which an emergency <br />vehicle has arrived at the site and is leaving with a person suffering burns or a heart attack. If <br />this outbound emergency vehicle were to meet a fire truck coming to the fire scene to assist in <br />putting the fire out - how far back towards River Road is the fire truck going to have to back up <br />so that the emergency vehicle can pass? <br />In summary, Mr. Weishar has presented the Planning Commission with a "professional <br />opinion" that cannot withstand the most cursory scrutiny and which is contrary to what fire <br />safety organizations, ODOT and OSHA recommend, as well as not hewing to Eugene Code. <br />There is no accurate, reliable or probative testimony in Mr. Weishar's letter. Mr. Weishar's letter <br />is so inaccurate, incomplete and slanted only to the applicant's interests, that no independent, <br />• <br />C. <br />5 If there is any speculation at all, it is coming from individuals whose intent is to tar opponents of the <br />PUD as maliciously-minded individuals. <br />6 Merriam-Webster on-line. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 10 <br />282 <br />September 4, 2015 <br />273 <br />