when traffic impacts double or triple under conditions that the City itself states would <br />not be safe. <br />No empirical evidence is provided as to the degree and effect (if any) that motorists' <br />driving behavior is different on dead-end streets. In any case, whatever beneficial effect <br />there may be is already present and will not mitigate at all the doubling or tripling of <br />relative impacts. <br />Under this same section, the Staff Report states: <br />"Public Works staff confirm that, until such time that property owners elect to <br />improve Oakleigh Lane to full City standards (including sidewalks), the existing <br />paved surface of Oakleigh Lane will continue to adequately provide for vehicle and <br />pedestrian traffic, as well as for emergency vehicles and delivery services, provided <br />the paved surface is not blocked by parked vehicles. With regard to public <br />comments received about vehicle parking occurring on the shoulders of the <br />roadway, Public Works staff notes that, technically, such parking is not allowed. The <br />street could be signed for no parking as part of improving the street, but not before, <br />because the City does not maintain unimproved streets. <br />Public Works staff states that the existing paved surface provides safe passage for <br />two-way vehicular, traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles. As such, <br />Public Works staff indicates that there is nothing to suggest that the impacts of the <br />proposed development will result in unsafe conditions in Oakleigh Lane." <br />The Public Works Referral Comments provide no data or analysis to support the <br />conclusion that "there is nothing to suggest that the impacts of the proposed <br />development will result in unsafe conditions in Oakleigh Lane"; and, in fact, the prior <br />comments from this same document (discussed in detail in the "Findings by City of <br />Eugene Planning and Public Works Department Staff" section, above) do more than <br />"suggest" the impacts, of the proposed development will result in unsafe conditions. <br />The following statement makes this clear: <br />"Without the additional right-o£-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the <br />City's minimum street design standards and the 1649 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 <br />access via Oaklei h Lane." (Emphasis added.) <br />Furthermore, the Public Works staff acknowledge that a necessary condition of this <br />conclusion is that the "paved surface is not blocked by parked vehicles." And yet, <br />public testimony, as well as aerial images, prove the pavement is typically partially <br />blocked by parked vehicles, rendering this conclusion generally invalid by its own <br />9 As mentioned earlier, the correct number is 169 ITE-ADT. <br />October 9, 2013 Conte testimony re PUD 13-1 15 1 P a g e <br />