Attachment D <br />incorporates the arguments under Appeal Issue 10 regarding PW referral comments. The HO <br />responded to EC 9.8320(12), as follows: <br />The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for EC 9.8320(12) and adopts <br />those 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 <br />term "insignificant" for the term "minimal" in EC 9.8320(12). 1 agree with the applicant, <br />that if the City Council had intended to impose a different standard it could have done so. <br />ORS 174.010. The Hearings Official agrees that requiring a PUD to have minimal impacts is a <br />very subjective standard that is difficult to implement, but EC 9.8320(12) says what is says <br />(HO Decision, Page 51). <br />The staff findings that the HO adopted to address the traffic component of EC 9.8320(12) were as <br />follows: <br />Traffic - Public Works staff confirm that the development will have minimal off-site traffic <br />impacts, as only 29 additional peak hour trips will be generated by the development. Public <br />Works staff state that Oakleigh Lane currently provides for safe passage of two-way and <br />emergency vehicles. No street improvements are required of the development, although, <br />right-of-way dedication and an Irrevocable Petition are being required to enable future <br />public improvements. Pedestrian safety is further addressed at EC 9.8320(5)(b); those <br />findings are incorporated by reference. With regard to public comments about the accident <br />at the intersection of Oakleigh Lane and River Road, this intersection is not on the City's <br />inventory of intersections with high crash ratings that would otherwise warrant analysis to <br />determine patterns that could be mitigated by infrastructure improvements. As such, <br />nothing further is required of the development (HO Decision, Page 50). <br />The Hearings Official goes on to explain his rationale for correctly interpreting statutory and local code <br />provisions, as follows: <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 />Instead, harmonizing EC 9.8320(12) with EC 9.8320(6) is helpful in understanding when a <br />project might have more than "minimal off-site impacts." While it is not prudent to theorize <br />too much about whether a project that requires a TIA necessarily has more than minimal off- <br />site impacts, it is certainly reasonable to assume that if any of the three conditions identified in <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 8 <br />