Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

engineer's methods and calculations. However, neither Mr. Saberian's review, nor any other evidence submitted by the Response Committee or other neighbors includes any calculations to dispute the city's and applicant's conclusion that the proposed development will not generate 100 or more vehicle trips during any peak hour as determined by using the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that, under EC 9.8670(l) a TIA is required. EC 9.8670(2) requires a TIA if "the increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute to traffic problems in the area based on current accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds that warrant action under the city's traffic calming program and identified locations where pedestrian and/or bicyclist safety is a concern by the city that is documented." Several neighbors refer to an accident that occurred in the neighborhood in September, 2017, as evidence that the city's statement regarding the lack of accidents in the area is inaccurate. They also note apparently unreported accidents that have occurred between motorists and bicyclists and cite many `near-misses' that they routinely confront. They note that neighbors must be extremely vigilant to avoid accidents, and that traffic must stop when residents exist their driveways in order to avoid collisions. They report that often traffic is delayed or constrained by vehicles blocking the roadway. Many note the lack of off-street parking, which requires that they and their neighbors, as well as visitors and contractors, park on the narrow roadways. Within the context of the existing roadway conditions and the current enforcement issues, the threshold for a TIA is whether "the increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute to traffic problems in the area based on current accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds that warrant action under the city's traffic calming program, and identified locations where pedestrian and/or bicyclist safety is a concern by the city that is documented." Based on the Response Committee and neighbors' testimony and evidence, it does not appear that the increased traffic from the development would warrant action under the city's traffic calming program. Based on their evidence and testimony regarding the low reported accident rates and low traffic volumes and speeds, it appears that, while drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians must remain vigilant, the street system is functional: it has not resulted in situation that would warrant additional calming mechanism or other actions under the city's traffic calming program. Rather, while the neighbors uniformly reject the City's traffic analysis, based on their descriptions, it appears that the existing conditions are consistent with the city's objectives for `queuing street' design standards. As the analysis states, "The narrow roadway and topography create a self-regulating condition consistent with the City of Eugene queuing street design standards and appropriate for the topography, speeds, and volumes in the surround[ing] neighborhoods." (December 8, 2017 city traffic analysis.) And, while pedestrians must share the road in several locations with bicyclists and vehicles, it does not appear that this area has been identified by the city for additional mitigation or concern. There is insufficient evidence that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development would necessitate additional action under the city's traffic calming program. Finally, EC 9.8670(3) would warrant a TIA if the traffic engineering analyses that indicate approval of the development will result in levels of service of the roadway system in the vicinity Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 50