20 <br />1 As to noise, although fears were voiced about noise coming from the <br />2 PUD residents and their cars, no real evidence was submitted that <br />3 these impacts will be of such volume as to be significantly <br />4 different from the same activities occurring in the existing <br />5 neighborhood. Without some evidence that the residents of the PUD <br />6 will be violating some noise standard, it is not reasonable to assume <br />7 they will bring any new, or louder noise impacts than the present <br />8 residents of the neighborhood already experience. <br />9 <br />10 Traffic is a tougher issue to measure. On the one hand, the record <br />11 shows that both peak hour vehicle trips and ADT will increase, and <br />12 even the applicant does not dispute that the increase appears to double <br />13 ADT over current levels. On the other hand, the applicant argues that <br />14 the proposal does not seek the highest density possible, and that the <br />15 low density residential zone anticipates 14 units per acre with <br />16 associated traffic impacts." Rec. 397-398. ER 63-64. (Emphasis <br />17 added). <br />18 <br />19 After carefully applying the analytical framework established by the <br />20 Oregon Supreme Court in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries the Hearings <br />21 Official found: <br />22 "While it is not prudent to theorize too much about whether a project <br />23 that requires a TIA necessarily has more than minimal offsite impacts, <br />24 it is certainly reasonable to assume that if any of the three conditions <br />25 identified in EC 9.8670 are evident in the record, EC 9.8320(12) <br />26 might be implicated. However, when none of the conditions exist <br />27 that would trigger a TIA under EC 9.8670, it is reasonable to <br />28 question whether EC 9.8320(12) is implicated as to traffic. <br />29 <br />30 That is the case for this application and this record. There are no <br />31 conditions identified in the record that come anywhere close to <br />32 triggering a TIA. The peak vehicle trip estimates are less than a third <br />33 of that required to trigger a TIA, and no "problems" or LOS <br />34 deficiencies are identified. The neighbors' fear that there will be <br />35 more cars on Oakleigh Lane than before is not enough to view <br />36 those new cars as more that a minimal impact let alone a negative <br />37 off-site impact. As such, the Hearings Official concludes that the <br />38 increase in peak vehicle trips from the proposed PUD will result in <br />39 minimal off-site impacts." Rec. 399. ER 65. (Emphasis added). <br />