46 <br />1 Level-Of-Service requirements. But being "safe" doesn't" guarantee minimal <br />2 impacts. If that were the case, Oakleigh Lane could be turned into a freeway <br />3 and the City would still find the traffic had minimal impacts on residents. <br />4 The Hearings Official also relied on a non sequitur that concluded: <br />5 "[W]hen none of the conditions exist that would trigger a TIA under <br />6 EC 9.8670, it is reasonable to question whether EC 9.8320(12) is implicated <br />7 as to traffic. <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 />That is the case for this application and this record. There are no conditions <br />identified in the record which come anywhere close to triggering a TIA. <br />The peak vehicle trip estimates are less than a third of that required to <br />trigger a TIA, and no `problems' or LOS deficiencies are identified. The <br />neighbors' fear that there will be more cars on Oakleigh Lane than before is <br />not enough to view those new cars as more than a minimal impact, let alone <br />a negative off-site impact. As such, the Hearings Official concludes that <br />the increase in peak vehicle trips from the proposed PUD will result in <br />minimal off-site impacts." Rec 73. <br />Again, the Hearings Official runs afoul of ORS 174.010. Nothing in the code <br />says the thresholds that trigger a TIA can serve as a universal standard for <br />"minimal offsite impacts," and the Hearings Official provided no explanation at <br />all for why this would be so. For one thing, "minimal offsite impacts" is <br />substantially dependent on the particular uses that are "offsite," so no single <br />standard would be reasonable in all contexts where a PUD might be developed. <br />The TIA process is focused on levels of service and safety, and doesn't concern <br />such impacts as noise, headlight glare and dust that arise from traffic. <br />Thus, the Hearings Official erred by failing to apply an even marginally <br />