Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

(2) The increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute to traffic problems in the area based on current accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds that warrant action under the city’s traffic calming program, and identified locations where pedestrian and/or bicyclist safety is a concern by the city that is documented. (3) The city has performed or reviewed traffic engineering analyses that indicate approval of the development will result in levels of service of the roadway system in the vicinity of the development that do not meet adopted level of service standards. (4) For development sites that abut a street in the jurisdiction of Lane County, a Traffic Impact Analysis Review is required if the proposed development will generate or receive traffic by vehicles of heavy weight in their daily operations. “For purposes of EC 9.8650 through EC 9.8680, ‘daily operations’ does not include routine services provided to the site by others, such as mail delivery, garbage pickup, or bus service. ‘Daily operations’ does include, but is not limited to, delivery (to or from the site) of materials or products processed or sold by the business occupying the site. For purposes of EC 9.8650 through EC 9.8680, ‘heavy vehicles’ are defined as a single vehicle or vehicle combination greater than 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight or combined gross vehicle weight respectively.” The primary trigger for a TIA is a development that will generate 100 or more vehicle trips during any peak hour. The applicant’s traffic engineer calculated that the proposed use would generate 50 trips during the AM peak hour, 69 trips during the PM peak hour, and 49 trips during the weekend peak hour. This is below the thresholds for requiring a TIA under EC 9.8670(1). Although opponents argue that a TIA is required under EC 9.8670(2) and (3), there is nothing that would require action based on current accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds that warrant action under the city’s traffic calming program, and identified locations where pedestrian and/or bicyclist safety is a concern by the city that is documented or city performed or reviewed traffic engineering analyses that indicate approval of the development will result in levels of service of the roadway 13 system in the vicinity of the development that do not meet adopted level of service standards. In any event, as explained by the applicant, in recent cases involving needed housing and the TIA provisions I concluded that the TIA standards were not clear and objective and could not be applied 13 Although opponents claim EC 9.8670(4) was not addressed, it is clearly not applicable. Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 21