entirety of Oakleigh Lane to have the necessary right-of-way, striped lanes and sidewalks to <br />meet the standards for a safe and adequate "queuing street." <br />Furthermore, a "queuing street" would not meet the Eugene Fire Code (EFC) standards for a <br />fire apparatus access road, as described in my prior testimony. Thus, the proposed development <br />would have to be served by an alternative fire apparatus access road (which is not currently the <br />case) before Oakleigh Lane would be acceptable when configured as a "queuing street. 112 <br />The second dead horse that Mr. Weishar has thrown in with the elephants and red herring is <br />the patently false claim that the Public Works Department (PWD) report didn't recognize any <br />hazards or risks that would arise on Oakleigh Lane in its current condition when 29 new <br />dwelling units were added at the end of the road. <br />Mr. Weishar presented no rebuttal to my argument in my July 27, 2015 testimony that <br />debunked this claim by citing the explicit statements in the following section of the PWD report: <br />"The proposed development will result in a 29 new residential units. These residential <br />units will be accessible only from Oakleigh Lane. Currently, 25 lots, consisting of a mix <br />of residential, general office and commercial zoning have structures that take access onto <br />Oakleigh Lane; thus, the additional 29 residential units will increase the number of <br />structures that access this Oakleigh Lane by over 100 percent. The construction of the <br />new structures will result in an increase of vehicular traffic onto Oakleigh Lane by <br />approximately 168 new vehicular trips per day. See Trip Generation Manual from the <br />Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Residential Condo / Townhouses <br />(Category 230). Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved <br />to the City's minimum street design standards and the 168 new vehicle trips per day <br />generated by the proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and <br />bicycle traffic generated by the proposed development; will not be assured of safe access <br />via Oakleigh Lane. (LUBA Rec 1257. Emphasis added) <br />This analysis is undeniably all about the impacts that will arise from the new development. It <br />starts by describing the development's dwelling count and emphasizes that " Whese residential <br />units will be accessible only from Oakleigh Lane." The report is talking here about safe access <br />for the OMC residents, not some future development. <br />The analysis then identifies the effect on daily trips by "the new structures," i.e., the PUD <br />structures. <br />Finally, the PWD analysis conclude that not only the "168 new vehicle trips per day, generated <br />by the proposed development" but also "pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by the <br />proposed development" on Oakleigh Lane "will not be assured of safe access." <br />z Discussions about queuing streets generally recommend that they be configured so they could allow use <br />by emergency vehicles in some cases, for example as secondary access when multiple fire trucks are <br />deployed. (See for example, page 8 of the Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines.) However, not one of <br />these suggestions implies that a queuing street would be adequate as the o2n!y access for fire apparatus. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 6 September 4, 2015 <br />278 269 <br />