What that statement appears to assert is this: <br />"The City has determined that Oakleigh Lane is (in its current condition) a Low-Volume <br />Residential street. That means the City has determined that Oakleigh Lane can safely <br />handle up to 750 daily trips, which is the range of daily trips associated with a Low <br />Volume Residential street." <br />But Mr. Weishar has engaged in another slight-of-hand. Here is the true story: <br />• "Oakleigh Lane is projected to have approximately 700 daily (one-way) trips. <br />• Accordingly, the projected number of daily trips falls in the city's range for a Low <br />Volume Residential street. <br />• According to the city's adopted street standards at EC Table 9.6870, a street with the <br />projected number of trips in the Low Volume Residential street category must have <br />at least a 45-foot right-of-way and pavement that is 20 feet wide. <br />• Oakleigh Lane doesn't meet the adopted street standards to safely and adequately <br />handle the projected number of daily trips."4 <br />Mr. Weishar has turned the proper use of projected ADT, street categories, and adopted street <br />standards on their heads, making it seem as if Oakleigh_Lane has been deemed adequate for the <br />projected traffic load. That is, however, not at all the case. <br />Again, even if Mr. Weishar's mistake is unintentional, this very obvious analytic error <br />demonstrates that his analysis is unreliable. <br />AN "OIL-MAT" SURFACE IS SUBSTANDARD . <br />It's helpful that Mr. Weishar confirms that Oakleigh Lane has an "oil mat" surface and not an <br />"asphalt concrete" surface, which means Oakleigh Lane's pavement is unlikely to be adequate <br />to support 80,000 pound fire apparatus, as the Eugene Fire Code requires. <br />It's unhelpful that the bearing capacity of Oakleigh Lane has never been assessed by OMC <br />consultants or the city staff, and therefore no assumptions can be relied upon as to its bearing <br />capacity. The Planning Commission cannot ignore this uncertainty or make assumptions that <br />are not supported by reliable evidence. <br />Mr. Weishar letter didn't evaluate the capacity and adequacy of Oakleigh Lane's pavement, an <br />omission that further undermines the reliability of his conclusions. <br />IS THE ELEPHANT THAT HARD TO SEE? <br />Mr. Weishar's conclusions regarding the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists sharing <br />the constricted pavement of Oakleigh Lane ignores the fact that the only reasonable <br />interpretation of EC 9.8320(5) explicitly requires that, when there's only a single, dead-end <br />Alice in Wonderland might have preferred Mr. Weishar's version based on Alice's comment that: "If I <br />had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because <br />everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't <br />be, it would. You see?" • <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 8 September 4, 2015 <br />280 271 <br />