Oakleigh Lane. Eugene, Oregon <br />April 18, 2017 <br />Page: 3 of 5 <br />Nemariam Report's assessment addressing future conditions. Nemariam Report, pages 1 and 2. <br />Furthermore, there is no indication of the compromised safety due to an emergency to all <br />residents (existing and future) due to limited width of roadway and added traffic and future <br />need for on street parking. <br />• "There is no indication the roadway is substandard because it currently meets the rural LAR <br />standards of Lane County." <br />Response: This statement again doesn't describe the "LAR standards" or the right-of-way and <br />paving configuration where those standards are applicable. Thus, it is impossible to verify this <br />assertion from the information provided. <br />The third paragraph of Mr. Gillespie's memo provides the following assertions. My response follows <br />each, in turn. <br />"Intermittent parking is a common feature City wide and acts as a built-in traffic calming feature <br />on most local urban roadways." <br />Response: This statement does not distinguish between roadways configured with parking <br />lanes, and those - like Oakleigh Lane - without a parking lanes. Nemariam Report. Pages 4 <br />(Table 1), 6 and 9. This statement does not address the impediment arising from legal parking <br />that occurs on the paving within the right-of-way, thus obstructing the 14-foot paving that's <br />available for emergency response. As a general statement, that does not seem to take into <br />account the specific conditions on Oakleigh Lane. This statement would have no effect on the <br />Nemariam Report's analysis or conclusions. <br />"The applicant's engineer has provided testimony and analyses for roadway operations and <br />safety, including evidence and analyses demonstrating the roadway has adequate capacity to <br />serve existing and proposed development also provided discussion and evidence supporting <br />the roadways adequacy for basic ingress and egress to the development site, for all modes of <br />travel [also] indicated the lack of the urban features should not be interpreted as being unsafe <br />or inadequate." <br />Response: These statements do not provide any specific citation to the evidence or conclusions <br />provided in testimony of the applicant's engineer. Thus, it is impossible to verify the various <br />assertions from the information provided. I note that "adequacy for basic ingress and egress" <br />does not address the ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles. In addition, "lack of <br />urban features" is irrelevant and, appropriately, was not a factor in the Nemariam Report's <br />assessment. <br />The Nemariam Report's analysis, based on a site visit and extensive evidence, concluded the <br />following: <br />"As shown on the photos near the fire hydrant, the available roadway width of less than <br />20-foot will not provide enough room for firefighters to efficiently set up and use their <br />equipment." Page 8. This can be further complicated during inclement weather <br />conditions or unforeseen emergencies. <br />"This 1,000-foot long dead-end street lacks connectivity to other city streets to <br />efficiently and safely accommodate access to proposed PUD site by emergency fire and <br />medical services vehicles." Page 10. <br />SABA, C.E.S. - Beaverton, OR 503-888-7553 sabaces100@gmail.com <br />