Planning Commission Staff Report (8-6-19)

Hearings Official's Decision: The Hearings Official found that based on the applicant's Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study and the city's regulatory framework and statistical information regarding roadway capacity, operations and safety, the city traffic analysis concludes that adequate public facilities and services are available to the site. Public Works analysis found the measured speeds on the streets are consistent with the statutory and posted speeds and do not warrant an increase or reduction in the posted speed. It also found that the measured speeds and lack of crash history indicate existing roadways (Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive) are operating as intended; and that its research indicates that these streets have been fully improved with curb and gutters since the 1950's and were designed to standards and exceptions of the design engineer and City/County engineers at the time of their construction. It further found that, based on the city's engineering records, the roadway has historically performed well. Public Works analysis concludes that the evidence in the City's records indicate the existing roadways are safe and capable of serving the development site (Hearings Official Decision, page 56). The Hearings Official also considered the concerns of citizens who provided testimony about traffic issues and the analysis of the Response Committee's traffic engineer, noting that, "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 'queuing' streets because they are not constructed to current standards. However, the review does not provide engineering evidence that the street system is not functioning adequately. The reality that the streets do not conform to city standards does not render the street system inadequate" (Hearings Official Decision, pages 58 and 59). The Hearings Official found that, "Based on all of the evidence in the record, including the low reported accident rates, the neighbor's testimony, and the Response Committee's traffic engineer's analysis, it appears that, while the streets are narrow and not constructed to current city standards, the street system does function adequately. Based on the above analysis, public facilities and services are either presently available, or can be available, and can be extended to serve the proposed development, in compliance with EC 9.8320(7)" (Hearings Official Decision, page 59). Summary of Appellant's Argument: The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred in multiple ways regarding adequate public street system serving the site, including: reliance on statements in the staff report that are without support in the document cited; disregarding the evidence presented by the NRC demonstrating the inadequacy of the current roadway system available to the site; erring in finding that public facilities and services are either presently available, or can be available, and can be extended to serve the proposed development; basing her conclusion that the below- standard street system does function adequately on the notable vigilance and caution of the current neighbors; reliance on demonstrably erroneous and unreliable evidence by Scott Gillespie, Eugene Public Works; erring in citing the evidence that on street parking on Capital Drive acts as a traffic calming device; erring in disregarding the many enforcement issues on Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 32