In addition, the Hearings Official made the following erroneous finding: <br />"Those implicit assumptions are that under EC 9.8670(.1), a proposal will not potentially create <br />unsafe traffic conditions unless the development will increase peak vehicle trips by more than <br />100 trips." (ibid.) <br />Neither the code nor the most basic comprehension of logic would justify this assumption. The <br />correct assumption under EC 9.8670(1) is exactly the reverse: A proposal will potentially create <br />unsafe traffic conditions when the development would increase peak vehicle trips by more than <br />100 trips - that's one of the reasons a TIA is required for developments that meet this condition. <br />Obviously, if the Hearings Official's interpretation of EC 9.8670(1) were correct, the triggering <br />conditions of EC 9.8670(2) and (3) would be entirely unnecessary. However, that interpretation <br />would conflict with the ORS 174.010 requirement that: "where there are several provisions or <br />particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all." <br />In dismissing EC 9.8670(2), the Hearings Official provides an incomplete statement of the <br />provisions in this code section: <br />"Under EC 9.8670(2), it is implied that a TIA and associated mitigation measures do not need <br />to be considered unless there is evidence of "problems"' caused by accident rates, traffic <br />volumes or speed." (ibid.) <br />The Hearings Official completely neglected to consider the last part of the EC 9.8670(2) text, <br />which also triggers a TIA: identified locations where pedestrian. and/or bicyclist safety is a <br />concern by the city that is documented." The Hearings Officials omission was-also impermissible <br />under the ORS 174.010 requirement to not "omit what has been inserted" by the City Council <br />into the code. <br />In summary, the Hearings Official never even evaluated the relevant TIA-triggering condition in <br />EC 9.8670(2), and he ignored the relevant evidence. As a result the Decision erroneously failed to <br />require the necessary TIA. <br />It bears noting that.a TIA would have provided location-specific data and analysis, including <br />current and projected volumes of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and the interactions <br />among these modes of travel. Thus, a TIA analysis - which should have been required - would <br />have provided the concrete evidence to conclude whether or not widening of, and/or <br />improvements to, Oakleigh Lane were necessary to be consistent with the traffic and safety- <br />related approval criteria. The Hearings Official erred by not requiring the TIA, and then he relied <br />on erroneous findings to conclude no widening or improvements were necessary. <br />Under EC 9.8320(6) <br />EC 9.8320(6) requires that the "PUD will not be a significant risk to public safety, including but <br />not limited to an impediment to emergency response." <br />The Hearings Official relied entirely on staff findings with respect to emergency response and <br />traffic safety. (Decision at 30) <br />The staff findings (Decision at 29 and 30) provide no analysis at all of the.configuration of <br />Oakleigh Lane with respect to either public safety or emergency response. Instead, the staff <br />Conte Testimony- December 5, -2013 PDT 13-1 Page 14 <br />270 <br />