Attachment C <br />Thus, the compelling expert opinion answers the question posed to Scott Gillespie: <br />"1. Since they share the same travel lane, will the increase in vehicle, pedestrian a~yyKK Rent B <br />non-motorized users, generated from the PUD, present more conflict and risk on Capital <br />Drive and Spring Blvd, versus scenarios where pedestrians and others are separated, e_.g., <br />by having a sidewalk to use? (Paul asked this question)" <br />- The reliable evidence proves the answer is unequivocally: YES The risk of a r-rotor vehicle <br />colliding with a pedestrian would increase in proportion to the number of motor vehicles <br />interacting with pedestrians after the proposed PUD is occupied. <br />Thus, the occupancy of more than 30 single-family homes will increase the risk in proportion t-o-the <br />projected increase in Average Daily Trips and the projected increase in pedestrians. That <br />proportion can and must be calculated by the City to legitimately evaluate the significance of the <br />increase in risk. <br />Until the Hearings Official has reliable quantitative data and analysis not just half-asked blather <br />from an incompetent Public Works staff member the HO cannot legitimately adopt a finding that <br />the PUD conforms to EC 9.8320(6). <br />Paul Conte <br />1461 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97402 <br />Paul Conte <br />1461 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97402 <br />2 <br />Page 124 <br />