Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

j) We have no indication (such as an "Authorization to Guaranty") that Mr. and Mrs. Dreyer are authorized by Maestown, LLC to "bind" the limited liability company and to enter the LLC into this "commitment." This type of authorization is common in financial transactions involving a limited liability company. k) We have no indication that Maestown, LLC is a valid limited liability company currently in good standing in the state of Oregon and in compliance with all state requirements for such an entity. 1) The signatures of the owners on the document could be that of anyone. The document is not notarized. Appeal Issue #24: The Hearings Official erred in the determination that adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, in regard to the existing street system serving the PUD. The errors are listed below. 1. The Hearings Official relied on statements in the Staff report that are without support in the document cited. She states (p. 56): "The city traffic analysis concludes that there are adequate public facilities and services are available to the site. Specifically, the city traffic analysis relies and explains that the volumes and speed along Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard were within expected standards for local streets. " The city traffic analysis discussed roadway conditions on Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard, and reviewed the applicant's traffic safety and street connectivity study, as revised 8/8/17. Appendix C of that study shows that speed data was collected at two locations only (#1 on Capital Drive north of Cresta de Ruta and #2 on Capital Drive east and uphill toward the site from the existing intersection at Alta Vista Court). The first is immediately abutting the proposed PUD, close to the terminus of Capital Drive, and the second is just beyond a hair-pin turn. A tube counter placed two years earlier "on Capital Drive south and uphill toward the site from the existing intersection at Spring Boulevard" collected traffic volume data only. As such, the speed data is insufficient to support the statement that "the volumes and speed along Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard were within expected standards for local streets. " Regarding the review of the Applicant's traffic study by Mr. Saberian (on behalf of the Response Committee), the Hearing Official states (p.59): "the review does not provide engineering evidence that the street system is not functioning adequately. " The Hearings Official disregarded the evidence presented by the Response Committee demonstrating the inadequacy of the current roadway system available to the site, as follows: • Engineering evidence provided by Scott Gillespie, PE (December 8, 2017, Attachment F Staff Report): Describing both Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard, he states "The paving width was designed to 18 feet from curb face to curb face." 25