Attachment F <br />adequacy to safety serve motorists pedestrians and cyclists. Measured speeds are consistent with the <br />statutory and posted speeds. The measured speeds do not warrant an increase or reduction in the posted <br />speed. The measured speeds and lack of crash history indicate the roadway is operating as intended. <br />Warning, direction and advisory speed signs are present in areas with limited site distance and geometry. <br />The signage is adequate and proper given the topographic/geometric limitations and statutory speeds. <br />Intersection controls are appropriate for the multi legged intersection at Spring/Capital. The intersection <br />controls at Spring/Fairmont are appropriate given the limited site distance the predominance of the <br />vehicular movement from Spring to Fairmount. Engineering staff finds no evidence that suggest the <br />existing roadway network is unsafe or incapable of accommodating the traffic impacts from the proposed <br />development. <br />The existing roadways that lead to the Capital Hill PUD site have been in existence for over a century. <br />They have been fully improved with curbs and gutters since the 1950's. The city did not have a council <br />adopted street design standard at that time. The streets were designed to standards and exceptions of the <br />design engineer and City/County engineers at the time of their construction. The narrow character for <br />the existing roadways is consistent with the intent of the current City design standards for queuing <br />streets. This situation happens all throughout the City of Eugene and other communities on Oregon. City <br />design standards evolve and it is not implied that older streets designed under older standard are <br />inadequate or inherently unsafe. The roadways are merely suffering from functional obsolescence. <br />Functional obsolescence does not imply that older streets are unsafe, perform poorly or do not have the <br />capacity to serve growth. Functional obsolescence simply means there is a reduction in the usefulness or <br />desirability of a roadway because of an outdated design feature, usually one that cannot be easily <br />changed. From an Engineering operations and safety perspective, there is no appreciable difference <br />between an 18 foot wide road and a 20 foot wide road. The utilization of on street parking is sparse and <br />the portions that are being used support traffic calming in the area. The roadway has historically <br />performed well and there is no engineering evidence to the contrary. <br />Three separate engineering evaluations were performed to address the safety, operation & capacity of the <br />existing roadways system serving the development site. City staff re-paved the street systems serving <br />the site prior to the PUD application. The evaluation and conclusions for re-paving were made <br />independent of the PUD application. Multiple City of Eugene transportation professionals reviewed the <br />rehabilitation plan and the plan was approved to reconstruct to historical grades, controls and parking <br />patterns. The applicant's engineer provided a robust traffic study and concluded the existing roadway <br />system is safe and adequate to serve. I have also reviewed the roadway system and conclude there is no <br />evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site. <br />Therefore, City staff concurs with the applicant's engineer and recommends the existing transportation <br />system is adequate to serve the proposed development and no offsite mitigation is required. <br />Page 388 <br />