Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

enforcement issues, with vehicles parking along the street leaving inadequate width for two cars to pass simultaneously. Others note that pedestrians and bicyclists must share the road with vehicles. However, they also note that through vigilance and caution, they and their neighbors are able to navigate and drive safely through this neighborhood. One neighbor noted "when I first moved here I thought this was a recipe for many accidents. I've been surprised but have come to realize that many accidents are avoided only because many drivers here are long experienced with the roads and exercise the abundance of caution that compensates for those who drive unaware, not an insubstantial number. And, a moderate volume of traffic mitigates the danger." (Email comment from Christopher Ogle, March 14, 2018.) During the hearing, and in written other written testimony, other neighbors describe that the stability of their neighborhood mitigates safety issues, and that "90% of the traffic is people who live here and they are safe" but that adding people who aren't familiar with the roads will create a dangerous situation. (March 7, 2018 Public Hearing testimony, Jason Brown.) While the neighbors cite their experiences navigating the existing street system to urge that the system cannot accommodate additional development, the city's traffic analysis explains the city's perspective that this system, while not built prior to current city standards, functions in accordance with its classification. As noted above in relation to EC 9.8320(5), the analysis explains that "the narrow roadway and topography create a self-regulating condition consistent with the City of Eugene queuing street design standard and appropriate for the topography, speeds and volumes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Spring Blvd. and Capital Drive do not have a crash history. This further justifies the adequacy to safely serve motorists, pedestrians and cyclists." He further explains, in the larger city context, that "The narrow character for the existing roadways is consistent for the existing roadways is consistent with the intent of the current City design standards for queuing streets. This situation happens all throughout the City of Eugene and other communities in Oregon. City design standard evolve and it is not implied that older streets designed under older standards are inadequate or inherently unsafe. The roadways are merely suffering from functional obsolescence. Functional obsolescence does not imply that older streets are unsafe, perform poorly or do not have the capacity to serve growth. Functional obsolescence simply means there is a reduction in the usefulness or desirability of a roadway because of an outdated design features, usually one that cannot be easily changed. From an Engineering operations and safety perspective, there is no appreciable difference between an 18-foot-wide road and a 20-foot-wide road. The utilization of on street parking is sparse and the portions that are being used support traffic calming in the area. The roadway his historically performed well and there is no engineering evidence to the contrary. The neighbors wholly disagree with the city traffic analysis and with the applicant's traffic study. The Response Committee's traffic engineer's review of the applicant's traffic study and the city's analysis also rejects both analyses. However, that review primarily emphasizes how the current street system fails to conform to city standards and notes many enforcement-related issues; and suggests that the system cannot be safe and the streets cannot safely function as Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 58