ER-41 <br />1 evidence in the record that demonstrated that the increase in peak vehicle trips <br />2 is less than 100 trips, the evidence in the record demonstrating no current <br />3 traffic problems, evidenced by accident rates, traffic volumes, or speeds, the <br />4 lack of documented concern by the city regarding pedestrian or bicyclist safety, <br />5 and the fact that that the level of service for roads and intersections in the <br />6 immediate vicinity is adequate. The hearings officer additionally rejected <br />7 opponents' arguments that traffic problems will result from the PUD: <br />8 "Although the Hearings Official understands the neighbors' <br />9 concerns about increased numbers of vehicles using Oakleigh <br />10 Lane, the strong assertion that an increase in ADT will result in <br />11 traffic accidents or actual danger to pedestrians and bicyclists, is <br />12 not supported by evidence in the record. Assertion[s] [are] not <br />13 evidence, and neither is an explanation of inductive reasoning. <br />14 Therefore, the Hearings Official cannot substitute the neighbors' <br />15 very strongly held opinions that more cars will necessarily <br />16 decrease traffic safety for actual evidence. Anecdotal instances of <br />17 unsafe traffic conditions are also not enough to trigger a TTA. <br />1$ <br />19 "The Hearings Official has not been directed to evidence in the <br />20 record that shows accident rates for Oakleigh Lane or at the <br />21 intersection with River Road are a problem. Nor have other <br />22 documented `problems' with traffic volumes or speed been <br />23 submitted by any party. Contrary to Mr. Conte's assertion, Staff s <br />24 position that there are no traffic safety concerns associated with <br />25 the proposal or Oakleigh Lane is some evidence that a TIA under <br />26 EC 9.8670(2) is not necessary. Public works did a lengthy and <br />27 thorough analysis of traffic conditions that is largely repeated in <br />28 the staff report. Neither Mr. Conte nor any other party submitted <br />29 evidence to the contrary, and that is what is required in order for <br />30 Staff or the Hearings Official to determine that EC 9.8670(2) <br />31 might be implicated by this application. * * Record 374-75. <br />32 In a portion of the first assignment of error, we understand Conte to <br />33 argue that the city's conclusion that a TIA is not required under EC 9.8760(2) <br />Page 41 <br />000090 <br />