Benjamin v. City of Ashland, 20 Or LUBA 265 (1990),3 the opponents did not raise <br />this issue below and it is not properly before the Planning Commission. In any <br />case, the case law is not relevant as it addresses a separate standard of <br />"livability" that is not contained in EC 9.8320(12). <br />With regard to the appellant's contention that the Hearings Official failed <br />to address impacts "from traffic (safety, noise, etc.)," the appellant is simply <br />wrong. The Hearings Official found that the opponents had failed to provide <br />any evidence with regard to noise from the PUD residents "and their cars." HO <br />Decision, p. 52. Moreover, the Hearings Official had already found that the <br />opponents had failed to identify any traffic safety impacts associated with the <br />proposed development. The appellant argues that the Hearings Official assumed <br />that there were no traffic impacts because the TIA requirement was not triggered. <br />However, it is clear from the decision that the Hearings Official made no such <br />assumption. Instead, after carefully applying the analytical framework <br />established by the Oregon Supreme Court in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries <br />the Hearings Official found: <br />"While it is not prudent to theorize too much about whether a project that <br />requires a TIA necessarily has more than minimal offsite impacts, it is <br />certainly reasonable to assume that if any of the three conditions <br />identified in EC 9.8670 are evident in the record, EC 9.8320(12) might be <br />implicated. However, when none of the conditions exist that would <br />trigger a TIA under EC 9.8670, it is reasonable to question whether EC <br />9.8320(12) is implicated as to traffic. <br />That is the case for this application and this record. There are no <br />conditions identified in -the record that come anywhere close to triggering <br />a TIA. The peak vehicle trip estimates are less than a third of that <br />required to trigger a TIA, and no "problems" or LOS deficiencies are <br />identified. The neighbors' fear that there will be more cars on Oakleigh <br />Lane than before is not enough to view those new cars as more that a <br />minimal impact let alone a negative off-site impact. As such, the Hearings <br />Official concluded that the increase in peak vehicle trips from the <br />proposed PUD will result in minimal off-site impacts." HO Decision, p. 53. <br />The Hearings Official did not assume that there were no impacts due to the <br />absence of a TIA. Instead, he found that there were minimal off-site impacts <br />from traffic because the proposal would not decrease capacity, adversely impact <br />LOS or safety, and no-one in the neighborhood had provided any evidence of <br />impacts. The Hearings Official merely rejected the opponents' baseless <br />assumption that an increase in trips automatically resulted in an increase in <br />impacts. <br />'The appellant cites to Benjamin v. City of Ashland, 19 Or LUBA 600 (1990), which <br />was a LUBA decision on an order. It actually quotes from LUBA's opinion at <br />Benjamin v. City of Ashland, 20 Or LUBA 265, 270 (1990). We address LUBA's <br />opinion rather than the order. <br />7 <br />241 <br />