31 <br />1 Official implies - the PWD identified serious safety concerns with the current <br />2 configuration of Oakleigh Lane. The Hearings Official ignored this evidence. <br />3 In addition, the Hearings Official made the following erroneous finding: <br />4 "Those implicit assumptions are that under EC 9.8670(1), a proposal will <br />5 not potentially create unsafe traffic conditions unless the development will <br />6 increase peak vehicle trips by more than 100 trips." Ibid. <br />7 Neither the code nor any reasonable analysis would justify this assumption. <br />8 The correct assumption under EC 9.8670(1) is exactly the reverse: A proposal <br />9 will potentially create unsafe traffic conditions when the development would <br />10 increase peak vehicle trips by more than 100 trips - that's one of the reasons a <br />11 TIA is required for developments that meet this condition. But the converse is <br />12 not necessarily true, i.e., when the development would increase peak vehicle <br />13 trips by 100 or fewer trips, there is no basis to conclude that there is no <br />14 potential for unsafe traffic conditions. <br />15 Obviously, if the Hearings Official's interpretation of EC 9.8670(1) were <br />16 correct, the triggering conditions of EC 9.8670(2) and (3) would be entirely <br />17 unnecessary. However, that interpretation would conflict with the ORS 174.010 <br />18 requirement that: "where there are several provisions or particulars such <br />19 construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all." <br />20 In dismissing EC 9.8670(2), the Hearings Official provides an <br />21 incomplete statement of the provisions in this code section: <br />