Oakleigh Lane. Eugene, Oregon <br />April 18, 2017 <br />Page: 4 of 5 <br />"The safe and unimpeded ability of emergency response vehicles to traverse this <br />extensive length of substandard roadway cannot be ensured without improvements <br />identified elsewhere in this report." Page 10. <br />"The 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane has a pavement width within the public right- <br />of-way of only 14 feet, more-or-less. This narrow pavement width cannot provide safe <br />and unimpeded two-way travel for emergency vehicles attempting to reach the <br />proposed PUD site and/or transit from the PUD site to a hospital." Page 11. - This can be <br />further complicated with random parked vehicles of various sizes, and manner of <br />parking along the way <br />"The 250-foot segment has a right-of-way of 20 feet and a pavement width, exclusive of <br />shoulders, of approximately 14 feet. Due to the limited right-of-way it would be <br />impossible to provide the required 26 feet road width at the fire hydrant unless <br />additional areas were dedicated or an easement provided." Page 11. <br />"Oakleigh Lane, in the configuration approved by the EPC, cannot safely accommodate <br />emergency response vehicles because of the potential for parked vehicles to obstruct <br />the travel lane." Page 14. <br />Mr. Gillespie's memo provides no specific evidence or analysis that would contradict these <br />conclusions. <br />• "The applicant examined the crash history of the entire roadway and concluded there is no <br />evidence that would indicate a safety issue." <br />Response: While this evidence would be relevant to determining how Oakleigh Lane can <br />perform under existing conditions, it does not address future conditions under which fire trucks <br />and other emergency response vehicles would be forced to traverse a potentially obstructed, <br />250-foot segment of 14-foot-wide paving within the 20-foot right-of-way in order to protect 29 <br />new dwellings at the end of the road. <br />• "City staff concurs with the applicant's engineer and finds the existing Oakleigh Lane to be <br />adequate to serve the development site." <br />Response: This conclusion is supported only by other non-specific statements within Mr. <br />Gillespie's memo; and, as noted earlier, the memo provides no actual data or analysis from the <br />referenced applicant engineer's report. As such, it does not provide any independent testimony <br />that would warrant any revision to the Nemariam Report's analysis or conclusions. <br />Comments by Mark H. Dahl <br />Mr. Dahl makes two assertions, which I address in turns: <br />"1. The existing Oakleigh Lane in and of itself does not exhibit si ni icant risk to emergency <br />response actions." (italics and underlining in original) <br />Mr. Dahl provides only two assertions in support of this conclusion: <br />• An existing fire hydrant provides the required water supply for firefighting capability. <br />• Current fire code requirements for width could not be imposed for the lane itself. <br />The first bullet item does not address the safety of Oakleigh Lane, and the Nemariam Report's <br />assessment did not address the sufficiency of water supply. <br />SABA, C.E.S. - Beaverton, OR 503-888-7553 sabaces100@gmall.com <br />