29 <br />evidence from the PWD analysis that indicates Oakleigh Lane would require <br />2 widening and improvements to meet the requirements of EC 9.8320(5)(b). The <br />3 Decision failed to thoroughly evaluate the issues and relied on invalid and <br />4 irrelevant "evidence" as the basis for the decision. The decision must therefore <br />5 be remanded for the City to properly apply EC 9.8320(5)(b) to the entire <br />6 portion of Oakleigh Lane between the development site and River Road and to <br />7 rely on reliable and probative evidence in its findings. <br />8 Subassignment of Error I.D. The Decision failed to require a Traffic <br />9 Impact Analysis as required by EC 9.8320(5)(c) and EC 9.8670. <br />10 EC 9.8320(5) requires the proposed PUD to provide "safe and adequate" <br />11 transportation systems through compliance with the following subsection: <br />12 (c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 <br />13 through 9.8680 where applicable. <br />14 The Decision failed to apply the following provision for requiring a TIA: <br />15 EC 9.8670 Applicability. <br />16 <br />17 (2) The increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute to <br />18 traffic problems in the area based on current accident rates, traffic <br />19 volumes or speeds that warrant action under the city's traffic calming <br />20 program, and identified locations where pedestrian and/or bicyclist <br />21 safety is a concern by the city that is documented. (Emphasis added.) <br />22 The PWD analysis supra included extensive conclusions, which were adopted <br />23 by the Hearings Official. Among these are findings documenting the City's <br />