Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

As summarized in the Staff Report, and as outlined in the applicant's Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study, the anticipated peak hour trips of the proposed development will be 27 AM peak hour trips and 35 PM peak hour trips, which do not reach the threshold of 100 or more peak hour trips. The report adds that there are no documented concerns to warrant further review under these standards, nor will the proposed residential development generate or receive vehicles of heavy weight in routine daily operations. The applicant's Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study identified no reported crashes between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014, which is the most recent five-year period of available crash data from the Oregon Department of Transportation's Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit. The Staff Report specifically relied on Public Works December 8, 2018 Memorandum prepared by Scott Gillespie, P. E., Public Works Development Review Manager, (city traffic analysis), which determined that Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive, which provides access to the site, are adequate to serve the proposed development and no off-site mitigation by the applicant is required. The city traffic analysis concludes there is insufficient evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site. Accordingly, the Public Works staff determined that the proposed development does not meet any of the applicable triggers for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Review, and therefore no TIA is required pursuant to EC 9.8650-9.8680. The Response Committee and numerous neighbors reject the applicant's report and the city's traffic analysis. In extensive written, oral, photographic and video evidence, the neighbors describe an existing roadway system that they consider to be unsafe and argue that additional cars generated from the proposed development will make an unsafe situation more dangerous. Many note the inadequate infrastructure, include substandard widths and the lack of sidewalks and curbs. Some note current difficulties caused by delivery or construction vehicles parked along narrow streets, and the congestion issues created by vehicles parked along the streets. Others note that the blind curves and the condition of the shoulders create a dangerous situation. One individual urged that adding more traffic to this system would result in `mayhem.' Some photographs and videos of the streets reflect these constraints, depicting cars and trucks parked in the roadway resulting in a single lane for vehicles and limited maneuverability; others show congestion caused by an accident or inclement weather. Some show pedestrians walking in the middle or along the edge of the street, and others show a vacant street. Much of the evidence and testimony related to the potential impact of the proposed development on the existing street system relies on this criterion to support a conclusion that the proposed PUD must be denied because additional traffic cannot be safely accommodated. However, this criterion requires an evaluation of whether the proposed PUD provides a `safe and adequate transportation system' through a traffic impact analysis when one of the EC 9.8670 thresholds is met. Accordingly, as they relate to this criterion, the hearings official construes the neighbors' arguments to be that a traffic impact analysis should have been required. The Response Committee submitted a review of the applicant's Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study by another traffic engineer, Mr. Massoud Saberian. His review echoed the neighbor's evaluation of the existing street conditions. His analysis was critical of the timing of the applicant's traffic counts and included numerous suggestions that questioned the applicant's Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 49