In addition to the above criteria, if the development is located <br />within the S-WS Walnut Station Special Area Zone, and increased <br />traffic the development would generate on streets within the <br />Fairmount neighborhood to the south of the Walnut Station Special <br />Area Zone shall be mitigated through the use of traffic calming <br />strategies or other mechanisms designed to discourage such <br /> <br /> The key portion of <br />control devices and public or private improvements as necessary to achieve the purposes listed in <br /> <br />Analysis Review is to ensure that developments which generate a significant <br />amount of traffic, cause an increase in traffic that will contribute to traffic <br />problems in the area, or result in levels of service of the roadway system in the <br />vicinity of the development that do not meet adopted level of service standards <br />provide the facilities necessary to accommodate the traffic of the proposed <br />development. In addition, any Traffic Impact Analysis Review addressing streets <br />in the jurisdiction of Lane County is also designed to ensure that cross sectional <br />elements of streets, such as the wearing coarse or pavement, base material, soils, <br />or storm water structures (bridges or culverts) have the adequate capacity to <br />accommodate developments that utilize vehicles or heavy weight and associated <br />.) <br />In a recent decision (Amazon Corner LLC TIA 16-7) involving a TIA application, I stated, <br />In addition, the standards for determining the scope of the TIA are not clear and objective either, <br />as evidenced by the arguments in Amazon Corner LLC about the scoping of the TIA. Therefore, <br />we apparently have a situation where we have needed housing, needed housing cannot be subject <br />to standards that are not clear and objective, and the TIA standards are not clear and objective. The <br />applicant argues that under this analysis the City cannot require a TIA permit to proceed with the <br />proposed development. <br />The applicant has a strong argument. Unfortunately, neither the City nor the appellant have <br /> responding is in the <br />September 20, 2017 staff report, which states: <br /> <br />Hearings Official Decision (SR 17-2) 5 <br /> <br />