Under EC 9.83.2.0(5 <br />The Hearings Official erred by finding that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA} was not required under <br />the following code provision: <br />EC 9.8670 Applicabilit . <br />(2) The increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute to traffic <br />problems in the area based on current accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds that <br />warrant action under the city's traffic calming program, and identified locations where <br />pedestrian and/or bicyclist safety is a concern by the city that is documented. <br />(Emphasis added) <br />As mentioned above, the PWD Referral Response included extensive conclusions, which were <br />adopted by the Hearings Official. Among these are findings documenting the City's specific <br />concerns about bicycle and pedestrian safety on Oakleigh Lane: <br />"Public Works staff indicates that the applicant's proposal is sufficient to accommodate the <br />turnaround, but not the area necessary to extend the sidewalk along the south side of the <br />turnaround, to separate pedestrians from vehicles and provide a safe public walking surface <br />for the residents of the proposed development." (Decision at 19. Emphasis added.) <br />And: <br />"Improving Ookleigh Lane to these [City] standards will allow for two-way vehicular and <br />bicycle traffic [and] will provide separation between vehicular-traffic and pedestrians <br />(Emphasis added. Decision at 21) <br />Thus, the condition of EC 9.8670(2) is met and a TIA is required. <br />The Hearings Officials findings on this point include patently incorrect statements, including: <br />the strong assertion that an increase in ADT will result in traffic accidents or actual danger <br />to pedestrians and bicyclists is not supported by evidence in the record. <br />Contrary to Mr. Conte's assertion, Staffs position that there are no trafficsafety concerns <br />associated with the proposal or Oakleigh Lane is some evidence that a TiA under EC 9.8670(2) <br />is not necessary. Public 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 party submitted evidence <br />to the contrary, and that is what is required in order for Staff or the Hearings Official to <br />determine that EC 9.8670(2) might be implicated by this application. " (Decision at 28 and 29) <br />The PWD conclusions, which were cited in opposition testimony, provide substantial,. reliable and <br />probative evidence. The "thorough analysis of traffic conditions relied upon as the primary <br />evidence for the Hearings Official's findings, in fact, concluded exactly the opposite of what the <br />Hearings Official implies -the PWD's thorough analysis identified serious safety concerns with <br />the current configuration of Oakleigh Lane. The Hearings Official, however, ignored this evidence, <br />as explained above. <br />Conte Testimony - December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 13 <br />269 <br />