Fortunately, commissioners appeared to have finally affirmed this reasonable <br />interpretation of EC 9.8320(6), at least partially, in the previous Revised Final Order: <br />"The applicant argues that EC 9.8320(6) requires the City to determine whether the PUD <br />itself is an impediment to emergency response, not whether the configuration of <br />Oakleigh Lane or all off-site streets would be an impediment. The PC concludes that <br />emergency response vehicles can access the proposed PUD solely via Oakleigh Lane and <br />that the ability of Oakleigh Lane to safely accommodate emergency response vehicles is <br />an issue that can be addressed in determining compliance with EC 9.8320(6)." Page 6. <br />The commissioners should not now reverse this interpretation, which provides a sound basis to <br />ensure the public's safety. However, if the commissioners were to revert to the applicant's <br />proposed interpretation, the safeguards intended by EC 9.8320(6) would be rendered <br />meaningless; and the commissioners would then be required to identify where else under <br />EC 9.8320 public safety is ensured for the PUD residents and others on Oakleigh Lane. <br />In fact, commissioners must expand their former finding and state that EC 9.8320(6) also <br />requires evaluation of the significant risk to pedestrians, wheelchair users, children playing and <br />others using Oakleigh Lane from the substantial increase in vehicular traffic that would occur <br />were the PUD to be occupied. The fact that Oakleigh Lane is extremely narrow and has no <br />sidewalks makes this category of risks a very real and legitimate concern that cannot be ignored <br />in findings regarding conformance with EC 9.8320(6). <br />It is also essential that commissioners not rely on any form of argument that is based on <br />whatever existing risks there may be on Oakleigh Lane. There is nothing "relative" about what <br />EC 9.8320(6) requires. A good analogy would be: Where the code requires that a new PUD <br />development cannot be allowed on a site with a significant risk of landslides, an applicant <br />cannot rely on the fact that there's an existing house on the site and already at risk. <br />OAKLEIGH LANE DOES NOT PROVIDE <br />SAFE AND UNIMPEDED ACCESS TO THE PUD FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE. <br />In its current configuration, Oakleigh Lane cannot provide safe and unimpeded access by <br />emergency response vehicles to the proposed PUD's 29 dwellings because Oakleigh Lane has <br />an inadequate right-of-way and paving width, and legally-parked vehicles, a fire hydrant and <br />other obstructions are in the right-of-way and on the paving. <br />Before proceeding with a legitimate evaluation of this issue, commissioners need to <br />reject the false basis that was relied upon in the previous Revised Final Order, which stated: <br />"Mr. Weishar provides expert testimony that, even assuming only 13 feet of paving is <br />available for travel by the public, this would adequately accommodate emergency <br />vehicles. In support of his opinion, Mr. Weishar relies on the following language found <br />in the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Bikeways and Accessways: <br />'On local residential streets with traffic volumes less than 750 vehicles per day, a <br />single 14' traffic lane may be permitted for both directions of vehicular travel. <br />The single lane is intended to create a "queuing street", such that when opposing <br />vehicles meet, one of the vehicles must yield by pulling into a vacant portion of <br />Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 3 April 12, 2017 <br />