Eugene Planning Commission <br />May 3, 2017 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />along its frontage for additional right-of-way to Oakleigh Lane, and has committed via <br />an Irrevocable Petition for Public Improvements to contribute to the future <br />development of the street to the applicable City standards at that time. Nothing <br />further is required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval criteria for <br />the Tentative Planned Unit Development. <br />B. Street Design Standards for New Streets are Not Safety Criteria that Are <br />Applicable to Oakleigh Lane. <br />Opponents also contend that standards for new street development are <br />somehow safety standards that must be applied to existing streets. However, as traffic <br />engineer Michael Weishar previously explained: <br />Oakleigh Lane does not need to be improved to City standards to safely <br />function. <br />Comments to the Planning Commission also confuse the issue of safety with the <br />issue of street improvements. Oakleigh Lane is adequate to safely <br />accommodate all existing and future trips. It has more than adequate capacity <br />to handle the low traffic volume from the PUD. In addition, there is no crash <br />history on Oakleigh Lane or at its intersection with River Road that would <br />indicate any existing safety issue. I have reviewed crash records in the Oregon <br />Department of Transportation (ODOT) Crash Reporting & Analysis Unit and <br />City records as well and find no reported crashes on Oakleigh Lane, McClure <br />Lane, or at their intersections with River Road. <br />Oakleigh Lane's lack of improvement should not be confused with an <br />inherently unsafe condition. <br />August 27, 2015 Letter from Access Engineering LLC to Planning Commission, p. 2. <br />Opponents attempt to confuse the issue by introducing testimony alleging <br />Oakleigh Lane's noncompliance with various street design standards. However, the <br />engineers stop short of addressing the capacity or safety of Oakleigh, and fail to <br />acknowledge that those design standards will only be applicable, if at all, at the time <br />that the street is development to urban standards. <br />As'traffic engineer Michael Weishar pointed out in his detailed response to Ms. <br />Nemariam's report, the opponent's engineer was exceedingly limited in its scope, in <br />the evidence considered, and in its conclusions: <br />1. "Ms. Nemariam was apparently not provided with a copy of [Mr. <br />Weishar's] letter, and her comments do not respond to or refute [Mr. <br />Weishar's] determination that Oakleigh Lane can safely accommodate <br />trips from existing uses and the proposed PUD." April 26, 2017 Letter from <br />Access Engineering to Planning Commission, p. 1 (Emphasis added). <br />