calculated and presented in a traffic study. This report does not mention nor provide such <br />measure. <br />17. Under Section 3.3 Construction Traffic has been classified as temporary and finite duration. <br />That is true, but temporary, in this situation will extend for many years, in addition since heavy <br />trucks would have dire environmental impacts, the report should have identified and provided <br />mitigative measures to offset such impacts. In addition, pavement conditions should be <br />evaluated for before and after conditions, and the developer must have a plan in place to pave <br />the road after a reasonable length of time to restore the road to before or better conditions. <br />18. Under Section 3.4, the report mentions the City standards for accommodating pedestrians <br />on local residential standards. ADA standards are also applicable to new development which <br />must provide safe path of travel to and from the new development. The developer must show <br />due diligence to provide such path of travel. <br />19. Under Section 3.5 Fire Apparatus Access, the report cites other substandard street widths <br />as justification for this development to be exempt. If this not fixed now, it will never be fixed. <br />Fire Marshall must have adequate mitigation and assurances in order to sign off on substandard <br />street widths. <br />forced to use the travel lane-ft, <br />paved width to provide a 14-foot travel lane and a 7-foot, adjacent parking or pull over lane. <br />adequate length and frequency to allow one of the two vehicles meeting head-on to pull-over <br />and pause to allow the other vehicle to pass. Other words, parking must be prohibited unless <br />there is another 7 foot designated parking lane on that side. <br />21. City of Eugene standards require at least a sidewalk on one side so that pedestrians, <br />including wheelchair users, visual and hearing impaired individuals, are not forced to walk or roll <br /> or allowed to <br />provide some sort of escape zone for pedestrians to move out of the path of an oncoming <br />vehicle. It is critical to note that sidewalks are required to provide separation of pedestrians. <br />22. Contrary to assertions made by the applicant and the city engineer (Mr. Gillespie), there is <br />absolutely no credible evidence that forcing an increased number of pedestrians and cars to <br />share the same travel lane has a positive effect on traffic calming, safety, livability and reducing <br />fatalities and injuries. By making such assertion, the author is either biased or unqualified or <br />both, and the report should not be used as reliable documentation. This contradicts EC <br />9.8320(5)(b) and 9.8320(6) which requires that the PUD and its occupancy do not create <br />significant risk to pedestrians. <br />23. As further proof, here is what Mark Schoening, the City Engineer of the Public Works <br />Department, provided as knowledgeable opinion on this issue: "The second issue is: The <br />implications of outward growth decisions as they effect on unimproved roads. ... The increased <br />development reliant on unimproved roads increases the demand on unimproved roads for all <br />modes of travel. In addition because unimproved roads aren't structurally engineered, the <br />increased traffic of new development increases the deterioration rate of the pavement surface. <br /> <br />