Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal Arguments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant argues WinCo analysis underestimates traffic and fails IMA criteria
Summary
Protect Our Valley Alliance told the council the WinCo traffic analysis undercounts pass-by trips and does not demonstrate the project will substantially contribute to comprehensive plan economic objectives required to exceed IMA trip allocations. The council closed the hearing and proceeded to vote.
Representing Protect Our Valley Alliance, attorney Andrew Mulkey told the council the appellant needed more time to respond to supplemental traffic analysis provided by the applicant two working days before the hearing and that the applicant's methodology undercounted certain trip types. "Our point has been that the applicant has failed to include certain analysis in its traffic analysis and this has underestimated the impacts of its proposed operation," Mulkey said.
Mulkey argued that because the WinCo site is in the Interchange Management Area and is projected to exceed parcel trip allocations, discretionary findings are required: the applicant must show that the project "contributes substantially to the economic objectives" of the comprehensive plan. The appellant said the current record did not support such a finding and that the council could deny the application on discretionary grounds. The council heard the argument, asked procedural questions and ultimately chose to close the hearing and move to deliberation. Staff and the applicant said the record had been supplemented and that ODOT and staff's traffic reviewer had concurred with the TIA conclusions.
