Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

safety and street connectivity study that is reviewed in this memorandum. As summarized in the Staff Report, the city traffic analysis noted that the applicant's engineer did the following: • Prepared volume and speed study calculations in addition to other geomatics and operational calculations. • Properly estimated trip impacts from the development site per ITE standards. • Included estimated construction traffic from the development site even though it is not considered best practice to do so. • Analyzed intersections for safety and operations. • Demonstrated that no crash reducing measures are necessary. • Demonstrated that recorded traffic speeds are within acceptable percentages for the posted and statutory speed • Demonstrated that Capital Drive and Spring Blvd have adequate capacity to serve the development site. • Demonstrated that no measurable congestion from an engineering standpoint will result from the proposed development. Based on the applicant's study and the city's regulatory framework and statistical information regarding roadway capacity, operations and safety, 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 also reviewed information associated with the 2014 re-paving of Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard, finding that pavement structural sections were designed to City standards, have the capacity to serve the existing neighborhood and the proposed development, and were found to be adequate to accommodate construction traffic from the development site. The city traffic analysis also found the measured speeds on the streets are consistent with the statutory and posted speeds and do not warrant an increase or reduction in the posted speed. It also found that the measured speeds and lack of crash history indicate the roadway is operating as intended; and that its research indicates that these streets have been fully improved with curb and gutters since the 1950's and were designed to standards and exceptions of the design engineer and City/County engineers at the time of their construction. It further found that, based on the city's engineering records, the roadway has historically performed well. The analysis concludes that the evidence in the city's records indicate the existing roadways are safe and capable of serving the development site. As stated above, the Response Committee and many residents of the surrounding developed residential neighborhood vehemently disagree that existing transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development, and specifically reject the city's traffic analysis. One neighbor objected to any reliance on that analysis, asserting that the analysis is wholly factually inaccurate. Noting that the City Public Works Development Review Manager declined to respond to his request for clarification and corrections to the analysis, he states that there is "nothing at all in the Gillespie memo that the Hearings Official can rely on upon as substantial, reliable and probative evidence." (Paul Conte testimony, March 8, 2018.) Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 56