Attachment B <br />significantly different from the same activities occurring in the existing neighborhood. Without <br />some evidence that the residents of the PUD will be violating some noise standard, it is not <br />reasonable to assume they will bring any new, or louder noise impacts than the present <br />residents of the neighborhood already experience. <br />At to environmental impacts, the PUD contains abundant open space with gardens and water <br />available to urban wildlife. As noted by the applicant, there are no identified rare or <br />threatened species present. The neighbors concerns about loss of habitat do not match the <br />evidence in the record which indicates the off-site impacts on the environment will be minimal. <br />Traffic is a tougher issue to measure. On the one hand, the record shows that both peak hour <br />vehicle trips and ADT will increase, and even the applicant does not dispute that the increase <br />appears to double ADT over current levels. On the other hand, the applicant argues that the <br />proposal does not seek the highest density possible, and that the low density residential zone <br />anticipates 14 units per acre with the associated traffic impacts. <br />In attempting to understand what "minimal off-site impacts" means, the Hearings Official is <br />required to seek out the intent of the City Council in adopting those terms. PGE v. BOL1, 317 Or <br />606, 610-612 (1993). 1 find that the concept of minimal impacts is inherently ambiguous. It is <br />clear that the City Council could have set a higher standard of "no off-site impacts" but chose <br />not to do so. However, the term minimal could be argued to mean that only the minimum <br />density could be sought in the applicable zone through a proposed PUD. That conflicts with the <br />purposes of the residential zones as set forth in both the Metro Plan and the EC, both of which <br />seek to increase residential density in residential areas within the urban area. <br />The Hearings Official concludes that it is appropriate to look to the context of EC 9.8320(12) to <br />help understand its intent as to traffic. The context'for EC 9.8320(12) are the provisions in EC <br />9.8320(5) and the related standards in EC 9.8650 - 9.8680 which state when a TIA is required. <br />Those standards are discussed above and the findings are incorporated here by reference. As <br />discussed above, EC 9.8670 sets forth three relevant circumstances in which a TIA is needed: 1) <br />the traffic anticipated from the proposed PUD exceeds 100 peak hour trips, 2) accident rates or <br />other "problems" warrant a study, and 3) LOS on the servicing road or nearby intersections is <br />below standard. The City Council appears to have decided that any one of these conditions <br />presents potential traffic system impacts that could warrant mitigation. <br />In interpreting related statutes or local code provisions, an interpretation must be sought that <br />harmonizes those provisions and does not leave one provision as redundant or meaningless. <br />Reading EC 9.8320(12), as the neighbors do, to impose a different standard for traffic impacts <br />than EC 9.8320(5) and reading the term "minimal" to mean almost no impacts at all, would <br />render EC 9.8320(5) and EC 9.8670 redundant if not completely meaningless. In other words, it <br />makes no sense that the City Council would ask an applicant to go through the analysis in EC <br />9.8320(5) and potentially complete a TIA if the proposed PUD could be denied for having <br />"some" impacts on the transportation system. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 52 <br />