Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

at River Road and Lombard Street. Opponents’ arguments do not provide a basis to deny the application. EC 9.8445(2) requires that the proposal comply with the multi-family standards of EC 9.5500. EC 9.5500(11)(a) requires that street standards and connectivity requirements for local residential streets shall be applied to public and private streets within multi-family developments and states “\[r\]efer to EC 9.8615 Connectivity for Streets.” Opponents argue the proposal does not satisfy EC 9.6815(2)(f), which provides: “In cases where a required street connection would result in the extension of an existing street that is not improved to city standards and the street has an inadequate driving surface, the developer shall construct a temporary barrier at the entrance to the unimproved street section with provision for bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle access. The barrier shall be removed by the city at the time the existing street is improved to city standards or to an acceptable standard adopted by the public works director. In making a determination of an inadequate driving surface, the public works director shall consider the street rating according to Eugene’s Paving Management System and the anticipated traffic volume.” Opponents argue that Lombard Street is not improved to City standards and that it has an inadequate driving surface. According to opponents, the applicant should be required to install a temporary barrier at the entrance to Lombard Street from the development. While Lombard Street is not developed to City standards, the applicant and the City contend that it does not have an inadequate driving surface. According to the applicant’s traffic expert, while the street is narrow, the roadway pavement is in generally good condition with no potholes or other significant deterioration on the driving surface. While Lombard Street is not in perfect condition, it does not appear to be “inadequate.” The July 12, 2018 memorandum from public works states: “EC 9.8615(2)(f) provides for the construction of temporary barriers where there is an inadequate driving surface. It is noted that road surfaces that are less than full improvement to city standards are not necessarily considered to be ‘inadequate’ in this context. The applicant has proposed a suitable transition surface between the new and existing segments of Lombard Street.” I agree with the applicant’s traffic engineer and public works that Lombard Street is not inadequate and therefore temporary barriers are not required. Opponents argue that the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with EC 9.5500(7), (13), or (14). These arguments are not particularly developed – opponents merely argue the Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 17