• How many times will OMC and their paid "experts" repeat the lie that the PWD analysis was <br />only about future needs beyond the proposed development? <br />Hopefully, this is the last time that dead horse has to be flogged. <br />THE NUMBERS GAME <br />Mr. Weishar has a certain way with numbers. However, his math doesn't withstand elementary <br />examination. <br />Mr. Weishar uses the ITE manual to derive that "the total would be 378 daily trips" on Oakleigh <br />Lane after the 29 new dwelling units were built. Then he concludes that this volume is "well <br />within the range for a low-volume residential street." <br />What OMC's paid consultant failed to account for in his conclusion is that ITE "trips" are <br />roundtrips (two-way) whereas the City uses one-way trips to determine the category of a street's <br />projected traffic load. LUBA Rec 872, Footnote 8. So, using Mr. Weishar's own numbers, the <br />projected daily one-way trips would be 756 (378 x 2), which would put Oakleigh Lane's - <br />projected traffic load in the Medium Volume Residential category. Streets with that amount of <br />daily trips would require a 50 to 60 foot right-of-way, according to the city's adopted street <br />standards at EC Table 9.6870. <br />However, as explained at LUBA Rec 872, the correct projection is actually somewhere around <br />700 daily trips3, which means the projected trip volume on Oakleigh Lane places it at the top of <br />the range for a Low Volume Residential street. <br />(Even the Hearings Official's findings stated: "with the addition of 29 dwelling units proposed <br />by the subject development, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) would be greater than 500 trips <br />per day - stated at LUBA Rec 39, adopted at LUBA Rec 44.) <br />Mr. Weishar's figures were wildly incorrect. <br />In any case, there is no dispute that the trip volume after the PUD is implemented would fall <br />within the range requiring the minimum right-of-way and pavement width that has been <br />adopted for a Low Volume Residential street. <br />The takeaway from this section of Mr. Weishar's letter is that his calculations are unreliable. <br />A FINE TAUTOLOGY <br />The next error in Mr. Weishar's letter is not so harmless. <br />Read this passage slowly: <br />"As a low-volume residential street, Oakleigh Lane can safely accommodate between <br />250 and 750 average daily trips." <br />0 3 Mr. Weishar also apparently over-counted the number of existing residences on Oakleigh Lane. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 7 <br />279 <br />September 4, 2015 <br />270 <br />