Opponent Arguments <br /> <br /> <br /> The Hearings Official views most of the arguments identified above in the findings for EC <br />9.8320(5)(a) to be equally directed at EC 9.8320(5)(b). Again, the strenuous assertion made by <br />neighbors is that the increase in ADT will necessarily decrease the safety of pedestrians, <br />children, and bicyclists traveling along Oakleigh Lane. <br /> <br /> Hearings Official Conclusions <br /> <br />The Hearings Official <br />those findings by this reference. <br /> <br />The Hearings Official <br />queuing effect of having a single travel lane along Oakleigh Lane is likely to result in lower <br />speeds and acceptably safe conditions for pedestrians. The applicant provided evidence in <br />submitted this very same information in Exhibit PT-1. The queuing effect is deemed effective <br />for streets that have less than 750 ADT. Even with the added trips attributable to the co- <br />housing proposal, the ADT for Oakleigh will be closer to 400 ADT at most. It is reasonable to <br />expect that the queuing effect identified in the ACSP will work to calm speeds and provide <br />reasonably safe passage pedestrians if the co-housing is approved. Once again, the Hearings <br />Official has not been directed to evidence that shows that pedestrian safety will necessarily be <br />decreased to unacceptable levels simply because 164 ADT are added to Oakleigh Lane. <br /> <br />at pedestrian and bicycle <br />traffic will not be assured safe use of Oakleigh Lane, the Hearings Official disagrees. PT-4. The <br />statement Mr. Conte alights on is a finding related to explaining the justification for the <br />dedication required under EC 9.8320(5) <br />require the proposed PUD to dedicate sufficient right-of-way <br />frontage to allow Oakleigh Lane to be brought up to the low volume residential street standard <br />along that frontage. That is consistent with requiring the proposed PUD to meet current street <br />design standards rather than allowing the development to access Oakleigh Lane in its current <br />form. The Hearings Official inconsistency <br />s findings. <br /> <br />(c)The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through 9.8680 <br /> <br />where applicable. <br /> <br /> Staff Findings <br /> <br />The proposed development does not meet any of the thresholds established in EC 9.8650 <br />through 9.8680. The creation of 29 dwelling units is estimated to generate an additional 29 <br />peak hour trips, which is well below the 100-trip threshold for requiring a Traffic Impact <br />Analysis. Referral comments from Public Works staff indicate no concerns related to traffic <br /> <br /> <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 27 <br /> <br /> <br />