Attachment B <br />This record contains uncontroverted evidence that the proposed development will come <br />nowhere close to producing the 100 peak hour trips necessary to trigger a TIA. That standard <br />does not discuss or contain a requirement to provide a TIA simply because ADT will rise by a <br />certain percentage, or a certain number of pass-by trips will be generated. To interpret EC <br />9.8320(5)(c) and EC 9.8670(1) otherwise would be to add language and concepts to the <br />provision that do not exist. That would violate ORS 174.010. The Hearings Official has not been <br />directed to evidence in the record that shows accident rates for Oakleigh Lane or at the <br />intersection with River Road are a problem. Nor have other documented "problems" with <br />traffic volumes or speeds been submitted by any party. Contrary to Mr. Conte's assertion, <br />Staff's position that there are no traffic safety concerns associated with the proposal or <br />Oakleigh Lane is some evidence that a TIA under EC 9.8670(2) is not necessary. Public Works <br />did a lengthy and thorough analysis of traffic conditions that is largely repeated in the Staff <br />report. Neither Mr. Conte nor any other party submitted evidence to the contrary, and that is <br />what is required in order for Staff or the Hearings Official to determine that EC 9.8670(2) might <br />be implicated by this application. Finally, LOS at the intersection of Oakleigh Lane and River <br />Road appears to be adequate and there is no evidence in the record showing that the proposal <br />will reduce the LOS to an unacceptable or failing service level. Therefore, there is no <br />evidentiary basis for requiring a TIA or assuming that the increase in ADT will necessarily lead to <br />unsafe conditions along the lane. <br />EC 9.8320(6): The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but <br />not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an"impediment to <br />emergency response. <br />Staff Findings <br />Regarding soil erosion and slope failure, the applicant's geotechnical analysis confirms that the <br />site is geologically stable and adequate for development. The analysis provides construction <br />techniques consistent with industry standards, none of which indicate the existence of unsafe <br />sub-surface conditions. Public Works staff confirms that the analysis indicates no soil conditions <br />that would otherwise require extensive construction to mitigate any significant geological <br />hazards or soil drainage issues. Due to the size of the development, an erosion prevention <br />permit will be required prior to any ground-disturbing activities. <br />With regard to flood hazard, the subject property is within a special flood hazard area; as such, <br />development of the subject property is subject to the special flood hazard area development <br />standards at EC 9.6706 through EC 9.6709, which is addressed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(11) <br />and is incorporated here by reference. The development itself will not result in unreasonable <br />risk of flood, per the stormwater management evaluation at EC 9.8320(11)(j). <br />With respect to the provision of emergency vehicle response, the applicant states the proposed <br />access on Oakleigh Lane and the hammerhead turnaround within the development site is <br />sufficient for the proposed development. Referral comments from Public Works staff indicate <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 29 <br />