New Search
Stewart Road Closure <br />May 10, 1999 <br />Page 13 <br />road closed benefit by a reduction of traffic, noise and dust and some increase in safety. <br />The industrial and commercial property owners at the other end of Stewart Road are all <br />harmed by the closure. Their income is reduced, their costs are increased because of <br />increased crime, and the threat to at least some of these businesses' safety is increased <br />due to increased break-ins and the cut-through traffic that creates a hazard of accidents <br />and property damage. <br />Part of the appellants' objections to the closure was the means whereby it was <br />accomplished. In the first instance they were not consulted or given an opportunity to <br />help create the record that went in to the decision. Then, after the first hearings officer's <br />decision that the City had proceeded in the wrong manner to make the decision, the City <br />re-issued the decision with the same effect. It creates the impression that it does not <br />matter what degree of harm the west side of Stewart Road suffers, the City has decided to <br />close the road. <br />No matter what the impression, the Eugene Code does not allow that. It requires <br />consideration of several criteria that involve the balancing of the negative and positive <br />impacts. By the requirement that the reasoning be articulated and subject to an appeal, by <br />implication the Code is stating that there is some point beyond which the City cannot <br />make a decision and implement it regardless of the consequences. <br />The question in this appeal is, did the City give adequate consideration to all the <br />evidence and make an appropriate decision within the confines of the Code. There are <br />several areas where the hearing brought forth evidence of matters that the City apparently <br />had not considered prior to its decision. Most important are some of the effects on the <br />western side of Stewart Road. The evidence was that the number of cut through vehicles <br />did not reduce as quickly as the City assumed. The evidence was that the loss of business <br />was greater than the City assumed. The evidence was that emergency response time was <br />more affected than assumed and the evidence was that there was an increase in criminal <br />activity. <br />With the possible exception of the increase in criminal activity, the City <br />considered all of these categories of effects, but the City did not respond to the extent of <br />the problems revealed in the hearing. This is not surprising, since the City made its <br />decision before the hearing. The City recognized the loss of the road and the resultant <br />delivery problems, and no additional evidence was introduced to indicate that the City's <br />evaluation was not complete, although obviously the appellants disagreed with the City's <br />conclusion that the negative effects did not outweigh the other positive effects of closure. <br />The City concluded that cut through traffic would decline, and that the emergency <br />response time increase would not be significant. The evidence at the hearing was that the <br />City had underestimated the continuing problem that this would represent. The <br />differences exist at two levels. First, of course, the City and the appellants assign <br />different weight to the problem. Perhaps that is to be expected, but it is not grounds for <br />determining that the City erred. Eugene Code section 5.055 does not indicate what <br />weight should be assigned to any factor or criteria. In other words, the Code creates <br />room for a range of evaluative decisions. As long as the City considered the evidence <br />and reached a conclusion allowed by, or within the permissible range of decisions <br />