Admin Order 58-99-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Stewart Road Closure May 10, 1999 Page 7 of this ecord, the City spent more time articulating the problem of road deterioration with re and to traffic engineering principles. A full consideration of the question of closure warrants repetition of the hearings officer's conclusions with regard to this questi n in the earlier decision. That portion of the opinion said: "The roadway capacity of Stewart Road is a major factor [in the decision to close the road]. The eastern portion of Stewart Road does not have the roadway capacity to handle the traffic traversing the road. The road is too narrow and in far too poor condition to carry the traffic that was passing, and its capacity was such that continued traffic further reduced the capacity of the road. Improving the road is the best means to address the capacity problem. If that is ruled out by other factors, then reducing the traffic volume addresses part of the capacity problem. Traffic investigations revealed that prohibiting trucks did not sufficiently reduce the capacity to bring the road in to equilibrium. Further reduction of the volume of traffic by closure [will bring the capacity and the volume closer to the appropriate balance.]" In the area of safety as a traffic engineering principle, the City attempted to limit itself s lely to the direct safety impacts of installing the barricade. The City concluded that th re would be minimal safety impact. Two of the components of this conclusion related to the possibility of traffic crashing in to the barrier and increased traffic accidents at othe intersections because of diverted traffic. The City concluded that there would be little n gative traffic safety impact, and there was no contention to the contrary by the appell nts. The City also concluded that the increased emergency vehicle response time was not an mportant problem because the proposed closure had been reviewed and approved by the ire Marshall. The appellants pointed to evidence that contradicted this conclu ion. On at least one occasion when the Eugene police responded to a break-in at one of he buildings along the western portion of Stewart Road, the police reported that their r spouse time had been prolonged because of the closure of Stewart Road. This raises he possibility that, while the administrative level of the Eugene public safety appara us might be aware of the closure of Stewart Road, until each one of the likely respon ing police units learns of the closure and integrates that in to their habitual respon a to emergencies, the closure may have an adverse effect on safety. A related issue ises from the appellants' reports of increased criminal and vandalism activity along a western portion of Stewart Road since the closure. This instance of the City's consideration of one part of a larger body of evidence repres nts the greatest difficulty for a hearings officer's review of the City's decision. The E gene Code gives the hearings officer the authority to affirm, modify of reverse the administrative decision. This is not to be read as an instruction for the hearings officer to substit to his or her judgment for the original judgment of the City. If, after taking in all the evi ence offered at the hearing, it appears that the City considered the evidence releva t to the decision, applied the criteria in the Eugene Code to the evidence and reache a conclusion that is consistent with the criteria of the Code, then the decision should be affirmed. This is true even if the hearings officer would have made a different fir