I n his attempt to interpret what constitutes more than "minimal off-site impacts" on, and from, <br />traffic, the Hearings Official cooks up an-approach that has no foundation in the code and doesn't <br />follow the ORS 174.010 and "PGE" rules for interpretation. The core of his interpretation is based <br />on the following assumption; <br />"[IJt makes no sense that the City Council would ask an applicant to go through the analysis in <br />EC 9.8320(5) and potentially complete a TIA if the proposed PUD could be denied for having . <br />"same" impacts on the transportation system." (Decision at 52) <br />Obviously, if Council had intended that a proposed development that satisfied EC 9.8320(5) <br />and/or a TIA was therefore a development that had minimal offsite impacts from and on traffic, <br />then Council could have written that into the code. But they didn't, and the Hearings Official <br />cannot render EC 9.8320(12) meaningless because of the EC 9.8320(5) or TIA requirements. <br />Furthermore, the Hearings Official statement that it "makes no sense" is mere hand-waving and <br />cannot substitute for the legally required explanation of how satisfying a TIA would necessarily <br />satisfy the "minimal impacts" requirement. Even a casual examination of the TIA requirements <br />would have proven the Hearings Official's assumption wrong. A development can have huge <br />traffic impacts and still be considered safe,.as well as meeting the TIA Level-Of-Service <br />requirements by providing adequate infrastructure improvements to accommodate the increased <br />traffic. <br />Following the above erroneous assumption, the Hearings Official makes a complete logical non <br />sequitur and concludes that: <br />"[W]hen none of the conditions exist that would trigger a TIA under.EC 9.8670, it is reasonable <br />to question whether EC 9.8320(12) is implicated as to traffic. <br />That is the case for this application and this record. There are no conditions identified in the <br />record which come anywhere close to triggering a TIA. The peak vehicle trip estimates are less <br />than a third of that 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 Lane than before is <br />not enough to view those new cars as more than a minimal impact, let alone a negative off- <br />site impact. As such, the Hearings Official concludes that the increase in peak vehicle trips <br />from the proposed PUD will result in minimal off-site impacts." (Decision at 53) <br />Again, the Hearings Official runs afoul or ORS 174.010. There is nothing at all in the code that says <br />the thresholds that trigger a TIA can serve as a universal standard for "minimal offsite impacts," <br />and the Hearings Official provided no explanation at-all for why this would be so. For one thing, <br />"minimal offsite impacts" is substantially dependent on what uses are actually "offsite," so no <br />single standard would be reasonable in all contexts where a PUD might be developed. <br />Thus, the Hearings Official erred by failing to apply an even marginally defensible analysis for the <br />EC 9.8320(12) criterion. <br />The Hearings Official's condescending dismissal of "neighbors' fear that there will be more cars <br />on Oakleigh Lane" is no excuse for his failure to actually deal with the evidence in front of him. In <br />particular, he shirked his obligation to consider PWD's conclusion that "safe vehicular, pedestrian <br />Conte Testimony- December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 16 <br />272 <br />