2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />ClyY OF EUGENE 26 <br />WYATCORNEY's <br />OFFICE <br />125 E. & Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 87401 <br />Phone (541 }682-8447 <br />Fax (641) 682-5414 <br />the increase in traffic generated by the proposal will contribute to traffic <br />problems in the area. That determination is to be based on three things - (1) <br />current accident rates, (2) traffic volumes or speeds that warrant action under <br />the City's traffic calming program, and (3) "identified locations where <br />pedestrian and/or bicyclist safety is a concern by the city that is <br />documented." <br />The City, once again, determined that the increase in traffic generated <br />by the proposal would NOT contribute to traffic problems in the area. It did <br />not identify locations where pedestrian and/or bicyclist safety is a concern.lo <br />In its discussion of EC 9.8320(5)(c), the Hearings Official made the <br />following findings: <br />"Moreover, EC 9.8320(5)(c) and EC 9.8670 contemplate certain types <br />of evidence concerning traffic conditions and makes implicit decisions <br />about when mitigation measures might be needed. Those implicit <br />assumptions are that under EC 9.8670(1), a proposal will not <br />potentiallX create unsafe traffic conditions unless the development will. <br />increase peak vehicle trips by more than 100 trips. Under EC <br />9.8670(2), it is implied that a TIA and associated mitigation measures <br />do not need to he considered unless there is evidence of problems' <br />caused by accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds. The third implied <br />safety concern is that a TIA is needed if LOS is not sufficient in for <br />the roads and intersections in the immediate vicinity." Rec. 48 <br />(italicized emphasis added; underlined emphasis 'in original). <br />1° The Hearings Official found: <br />"Although the Hearings Official understands the neighbors' concerns <br />about increased numbers of vehicles using Oaklei h Lane, the strong <br />assertion that an increase in ADT will result in tra~fic accidents or <br />actual danger to pedestrians and b-icyclists is not supported by <br />evidence in the record. Assertions is not evidence, and neither is an <br />explanation of inductive reasoning. Therefore the Hearings Official <br />cannot substitute the neighbors' very strongly held opinions that more <br />cars will necessarily decrease traffic safety for actual- evidence. <br />Anecdotal instances of unsafe traffic conditions are also not enough to <br />trigger a TIA. Rec. 48 (emphasis in original). <br />Page 17 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />