Intervenor takes issue with the findings italicized. in the above quote. <br />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 />26 <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br />CITY ATTORNEY'S <br />OFFICE <br />125 E. & Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Phone (541) 682-8447 <br />Fax(541)682-5414 <br />He asserts that, from the requirement that a TIA be conducted where peak <br />vehicle trip will be increased by more than 100 trips, one can assume that <br />anything above the 100 trip threshold would justify a presumption of unsafe <br />conditions, thus triggering a TIA. However, Intervenor asserts that the <br />converse is not true; z. e., where fewer than 100 trips are being added, one <br />cannot assume that such increase will NOT create unsafe conditions. <br />There are numerous problems with Intervenor's argument. First, all <br />the Hearings Official needed to do was find that none of the TIA triggering <br />events was present. He did that. Second, the challenged findings are not <br />necessary to his determination that EC 9.8320(5)(c) is complied with, but <br />rather are merely explanatory of the Hearings Official's understanding of <br />how EC 9.8670 works. Third, under EC 9.8670(2), a TIA is triggered where <br />the increase in traffic generated by the proposal will contribute to traffic <br />problems in the area. While Intervenor asserts that traffic problems will <br />result, the City did not agree.11 The Hearings Official's interpretation is <br />" The Hearings Official found: <br />"The Hearings Official has not been directed to evidence in the record <br />that shows accident rates for Oakleigh Lane or at the intersection with <br />River Road are a problem. Nor have other documented `problems' <br />with traffic volumes or speeds been submitted by any party. Contrary <br />to Mr. Conte's assertion, Staff's position that there are no traffic <br />safety concerns associated with the proposal or Oakleigh Lane is some <br />evidence that a TIA under EC 9.8670(2) is not necessary. Public <br />Works did a lengthy and thorough analysis of traffic conditions that is <br />largely repeated in the Staff report. Neither Mr. Conte nor any other <br />party submitted evidence to the contrary, and that is what is required <br />in order for Staff or the Hearings Official to determine that EC <br />9.8670(2) might be implicated by this application." Rec. 49. <br />Page 18 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />