Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 13 <br />parking density have the highest 'traffic calming' effect. On-street parking <br />also provides a buffer between pedestrians and traffic." Best Practices for <br />Complete Streets, p. 2-3. <br />While the City street standards may include particular standards for. striping, curb <br />markings or signage for accepted City streets, substantial evidence in the record <br />establishes that Oakleigh Lane will provide safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation and <br />that EC. 9.8320(5)(b) is met. <br />Finally, OMC did riot "and does not require a Traffic Impact Analysis Review <br />under EC 9.8320(5)(c) because it does not trigger any of the requirements for review <br />much less mitigation. As the Hearings Official found: <br />"EC- 9.8320(5)(c) invokes EC 9.8670 on the question of when a TIA may be <br />required to support a PUD. application. There are three primary circumstances <br />in which a TIA may be required: 1) when the development will generate more <br />than100 peak hour vehicle trips, 2) when 'the increased traffic resulting from <br />the development will contribute to traffic problems in the area based on current <br />accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds that warrant action, and 3) where <br />approval of the development will result in level-of-service failures of the <br />roadway system in the vicinity. If none of these. conditions will result from the <br />approval of the PUD, then the code does not require a TIA and the City cannot <br />force an applicant to provide one. <br />This record contains uncontroverted evidence that the proposed development <br />will come nowhere close to producing the 100 peak hour trips necessary to <br />trigger a TIA...The Hearings Official has not been directed to evidence in the <br />record that shows that accident rates for Oakleigh Lane or at the intersection <br />with River Road are a problem. Nor have other documented 'problems' with <br />traffic volumes or speeds been submitted by any party... Finally, LOS at the <br />intersection of Oakleigh Lane and River Road appears to be adequate and there <br />is no evidence in the record showing that the proposal will reduce LOS to an <br />unacceptable or failing level. Therefore, there is no evidentiary basis. for <br />requiring a TIA or assuming that the increase in ADT will necessarily lead to <br />unsafe conditions along the lane." Hearings Official Decision, p. 28-9; LUBA Rec. <br />48-9. <br />The Planning Commission affirmed this finding stating: "the PC finds that the HO did <br />not err in his conclusion that none of the TIA applicability provisions required a TIA." <br />Rec. 4; LUBA Rec. 9. LUBA affirmed the Planning Commission's decision on appeal. <br />LUBA Opinion, p. 40-1. <br />- On remand, the opponents urge that the City could not rely on Public Works <br />referral comments to the effect that Public Works staff had no concerns regarding <br />traffic safety or levels of service resulting from the development. However, the Public <br />1 <br />316 <br />436 <br />