Attachment B <br />Willamette River, which is located more than 200 feet east of the subject property. As <br />discussed at EC 9.8320(4), the PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural <br />environment and includes tree preservation and additional tree planting; those findings are <br />incorporated by reference. <br />Based on these findings, the proposed PUD will comply with the applicable criterion. <br />Opponent Arguments <br />The neighbors mostly blended arguments under this criterion with compatibility arguments <br />under EC 9.8320(13). However, the following arguments seem to be directed at EC 9.8320(12): <br />• The proposed PUD more than doubles the amount of traffic on Oakleigh Lane. PT-1, PT- <br />2 and PT-4. <br />• Up to 47 cars will be leaving the PUD every morning making noise and shining headlights <br />into neighboring homes. PT-2 <br />• Visitors coming to the PUD will bring traffic impacts. <br />• More than 100 new residents will be living in the PUD. PT-2. <br />• At the October 2, 2013 hearing some neighbors stated that building the development <br />would reduce wildlife habitat. <br />In addition, Mr. Conte argues that the word "minimal" is nearly meaningless as a standard and <br />urges the term "insignificant" be used as the standard instead. PT-32. <br />Hearing Official Conclusions <br />The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for EC 9.8320(12) and adopts those <br />findings by this reference - consistent with the findings set forth below. <br />As an initial matter, the Hearings Official rejects Mr. Conte's invitation to substitute the term <br />"insignificant" for the term "minimal" in EC 9.8320(12). 1 agree with the applicant, that if the <br />City Council had intended to impose a different standard it could have done so. ORS 174.010. <br />The Hearings Official agrees that requiring a PUD to have minimal impacts is a very subjective <br />standard that is difficult to implement, but EC 9.8320(12) says what is says. <br />As to stormwater impacts, the application has already been found to comply with EC 9.8320(6 <br />& 9) which regulate the treatment and discharge of stormwater from the subject property. -The <br />findings for those sections is adopted here by this reference. The record shows that the <br />infiltration and treatment of stormwater will allow the applicant to mimic pre-development <br />levels after the PUD is built, which means no net increase in stormwater impacts should be. <br />reasonably anticipated for the City open space to the east. That constitutes a minimal impact. <br />As to noise, although fears were voiced about noise coming from the PUD residents and their <br />cars, no real evidence was submitted that these impacts will be of such volume as to be <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 51 <br />