Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

The Response Committee and other neighbors also challenge the qualifications of the applicant's traffic engineer and opine that their traffic engineer is more qualified to assess the existing street system and the potential impact of additional development. The hearings official finds no merit to any challenge to the qualifications of any of the traffic professionals (or the other professionals who prepared or reviewed evidence for this application). The hearings official finds no reason to question the qualifications of the professionals who prepared or reviewed the evidentiary materials for the analysis of the existing transportation system or the potential impact of additional development on that system. While professionals may disagree with others' analysis, that disagreement does not render the others' qualifications deficient. As discussed above in relation to EC 9.8320(5), the Response Committee's traffic engineer and many neighbors disagree with the city's characterization of the existing neighborhood's street system. However, notwithstanding their vehement opposition to the city's characterization of the streets, that analysis is actually largely consistent with the neighbor's descriptions. The city's analysis does not dispute that the streets leading to the proposed PUD are not built to city standards. It describes Spring Blvd as "a local street improved with travel lanes, curbs and stormwater controls. The paving width was designed to 18 feet from curb face to curb face. No sidewalks are present on either side. Parking is restricted on both sides of the roadway. No parking signs are present but intermittently space. The spacing does not meet current no-parking sign spacing standards but the presence of signage legally establishes the restriction throughout its length. Horizontal alignment, warning and advisory speed signs are present where site distance is limited as the statutory speed (25 mph). A speed sign is present on the downhill portion of the roadways." The analysis further explains that "Capital Drive begins at the intersection of Spring Blvd (along with Woodlawn and Madrona.) The intersection is fully controlled due to the awkward geometry and site distance. Capital Drive is a local street improved with travel lanes, curbs and stormwater controls. The paving width was designed to 18 feet from curb face to curb face. A 2-foot wide sidewalk exists on the downhill side of the roadway ending at the intersection of Alta Vista Ct. Parking is restricted on the uphill side of the roadway. Signage is present at what appears to be standard spacing. Both curbs are painted yellow restricting parking on Capital Drive form the intersection of Alta Vista Court through the 180 degree turn near the top of Capital Dr. approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Cresta De Ruta. The 200-foot section from the end of the 180-degree curve to Cresta De Ruta appears to have a faded yellow curb painted on the downhill side of the road. Parking patterns in this section are less pronounced. Capital Drive from Cresta De Ruta through the development site does not allow parking on either side of the road. This is established by no parking signs on both sides of the road. Horizontal alignment, warning and advisory speed signs are present where site distance is limited at the statutory speed (25 mph). Many neighbors describe the impact of the existing street layout as resulting in numerous Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 57