Goal 12 (Transportation). Neither Goal 1 nor Goal 12, however, is an applicable approval criterion <br />for the application. Therefore, Sandow’s arguments provide no basis to deny the application. <br />Numerous opponents argue that the property should have never been sold to a private entity – <br />the property was previously owned by a public entity. While I understand opponents’ concerns <br />about disposition of public property, that disposition has already occurred. The only issues <br />involved in this case are the applicable approval criteria. There is nothing that I can consider that <br />places any relevance on whether the property should be sold to a private entity – or this particular <br />private entity. Opponents’ arguments do not provide a basis to deny the decision. <br />Opponents argue that the application should be denied because the applicant has not <br />established that the property is a legal lot. The basis for this argument is somewhat unclear. <br />Opponents cite an approval criterion – EC 9.8325(7)(a) – which is an approval criterion for planned <br />unit developments not for site review. Opponents then cite another Hearings Official decision <br />regarding a lot verification request. While the EC certainly provides a process for verifying legal <br />lots that hardly means that that is a requirement for every application. Opponents argue that the <br />property was reduced in size in the past and therefore might not be a legal lot. The mere fact that <br />a property has changed sizes hardly suggests that it is a not a legal lot. As the July 9, 2018 staff <br />memorandum states: <br /> “Staff note that the subject proposal is not subject to PUD approval criteria nor <br />PUD application requirements. Staff further add that the Willamette Greenway <br />Permit, Site Review, and Adjustment Review applications do not require the <br />applicant to provide evidence of legal lot status.” Id. at 6. <br /> Finally, opponents argue that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) should have been performed. <br />Under EC 9.8670 there are triggers for when a TIA must be performed. EC 9.8670 provides: <br />“Traffic Impact Analysis Review is required when one of the conditions in <br />subsections (1) – (4) of this section exist unless the development is within an <br />area (a) shown on Map 9.8670 Downtown Traffic Impact Analysis Exempt <br />Area, or (b) subject to a prior approved Traffic Impact Analysis and is consistent <br />with the impacts analyzed. <br />(1) The development will generate 100 or more vehicle trips during <br />any peak hour as determined by using the most recent edition of <br />the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation. In <br />developments involving a land division, the peak hour trips shall <br />be calculated based on the likely development that will occur on <br />all lots resulting from the land division. <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 20 <br /> <br />