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