Admin Order 58-99-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Stewart Road Closure May 10, 1999 Page 8 decisio if he or she had been presented with the evidence and called upon to make an origina decision. his task is made more difficult when, as here, the City did not provide notice and an opp rtunity to comment or submit evidence before it made the decision. This means that it i very likely that new evidence will be submitted at an appeal hearing. This puts the Cit in a difficult position, because it cannot argue that all the evidence has been review d, since some of the evidence was put in the record after the City's decision was made. he City did not attempt to limit the record to facts before the City at the time of its initi I decision. In its decision the City acknowledged that the safety issue of emergency response was rel vant to the decision. The proposed closure was reviewed by police and fire depart ent personnel, who approved the closure design, which provides for emergency vehicl access. The evidence introduced at the hearing suggests that there is a negative effect n police response, because not all the police are aware that they can remove the barrier or they are not willing to take the time to do so in an emergency situation. We can sp culate that the increased response time caused by the police attempting to use Stew Road and then reversing course because of the closure will be relatively small, since ord of the closure and the problems caused should circulate among the police officer .The increased response time for police who might be coming from the north to respon on Stewart Road who will now have to take the extra time to travel to and along West 11t1i should be something less than the average increased travel time of 50 seconds. The evidence suggests that the City's conclusions concerning the effect of the closur on emergency response was incorrect, but only as a matter of degree. The City consid red the question and made an appropriate decision, based on the evidence availa le. The hearing produced contrary evidence. The evidence suggests that, at least for a ti e, there will be an effect on emergency response as a result of the closure of Stew Road. The City considered several traffic factors within the general criteria of traffic invest'gations. The traffic volume information and traffic origin information is described and th same conclusion is reached: that the closure will result in some increased travel time. he City reports on a traffic speed study and concludes that the reports of speeding vehicl s are mainly a report of perceived speed. The City concludes that while actual speed snot excessive, the condition of the road, and the consequent noise and dust of traffic creates a perception that vehicles are speeding. The City concludes that Stewart Road oes not have an accident problem. The appellants do not directly challenge any of these onclusions. In the earlier hearing on the initial order to close Stewart Road, the appellants emph ized that a significant objectionable result for them was the number of vehicles that w re cutting through private property to avoid having to reverse themselves because of the closure of Stewart Road. In this administrative order the City considers that impact of clo ing the road and concludes that while it might be a common initial occurrence, it will d cline over time. The evidence from the appellants and other opponents of the