Attachment B <br />safety issues or poor service levels which will result from this development. Based on these <br />findings, the above criterion does not apply. <br />Opponent Arguments <br />The neighbors strenuously argue that a TIA is needed because of the increase in ADT the <br />proposed co-housing will produce. As noted above under the findings for EC 9.8320(5)(a), they <br />argue that a 145% increase in the ADT should trigger a review, and that in any case the increase <br />in traffic will bring safety risks that are unacceptable. Mr. Conte argues that in addition to the <br />increase in ADT, an incredible increase of over 5,000 pass-by trips will be generated, and that <br />should be sufficient reason to trigger a TIA. Mr. Conte also argues that the Staff's conclusion <br />that there are no concerns with the safe operation of Oakleigh Lane has been rebutted by his <br />analysis and cannot be viewed as sufficient substantial evidence of compliance. PT-4, PT.R-2. <br />Hearings Official Conclusions <br />The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for EC 9.8320(5)(c) and adopts <br />those findings by this reference. <br />EC 9.8320(5)(c) invokes EC 9.8670 on the question of when a TIA may be required to support a <br />PUD application. There are three primary circumstances in which a TIA may be required: 1) <br />when the development will generate more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips, 2) when "the <br />increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute to traffic problems in the area <br />based on current accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds that warrant action, and 3) where <br />approval of the development will result in level-of-service failures of the roadway system in the <br />vicinity. If none of these conditions will result'from approval of the PUD, then the code does <br />not require a TIA and the City cannot force an applicant to provide one. <br />Although the Hearings Official understands the neighbors' concerns about increased numbers <br />of vehicles using Oakleigh Lane, the strong assertion that an increase in ADT will result in traffic <br />accidents or actual danger to pedestrians and bicyclists is not supported by evidence in the <br />record. Assertion is not evidence, and neither is an explanation of inductive reasoning. <br />Therefore, the Hearings Official cannot substitute the neighbors' very strongly held opinions <br />that more cars will necessarily decrease traffic safety for actual evidence. Anecdotal instances <br />of unsafe traffic conditions are also not enough to trigger a TIA. <br />Moreover, EC 9.8320(5)(c) and EC 9.8670 contemplate certain types of evidence concerning <br />traffic conditions and makes implicit decisions about when mitigation measures might be <br />needed. Those implicit assumptions are that under EC 9.8670(1), a proposal will not potentially <br />create unsafe traffic conditions unless the development will increase peak vehicle trips by more <br />than 100 trips. Under EC 9.8670(2), it is implied that a TIA and associated mitigation measures <br />do not need to be considered unless there is -evidence of "problems" caused by accident rates, <br />traffic volumes or speeds. The third implied safety concern is that a TIA is needed if LOS is not <br />sufficient in for the roads and intersections in the immediate vicinity. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 28 <br />