Attachment D <br />EC 9.8670 are evident in the record, EC 9.8320(12) might be implicated. However, when none <br />of the conditions exist that would trigger a TIA under EC 9.8670, it is reasonable to question <br />whether EC 9.8320(12) is implicated as to traffic. <br />That is the case for this application and this record. There are no conditions identified in the <br />record which come anywhere close to triggering a TIA. The peak vehicle trip estimates are less <br />than a third of that required to trigger a TIA, and no "problems" or LOS deficiencies are <br />identified. The neighbors' fear that there will be more cars on Oakleigh Lane than before is not <br />enough to view those new cars as more than a minimal impact, let alone a negative off-site <br />impact. As such, the Hearings Official concludes that the increase in peak vehicle trips from the <br />proposed PUD will result in minimal off-site impacts. <br />If the PC disagrees with the HO's analysis, and agrees with the appellant that the scope of EC <br />9.8320(12) goes beyond the potential TIA requirements, additional findings or requirements ensuring <br />minimal off-site traffic impacts could also be considered in the absence of a TIA. Alternatively, the PC <br />could make findings to explain how the approval criteria have not been met. <br />6. Sixth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(13) <br />"The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and harmonious with adiacent <br />and nearby land uses." <br />The appellant asserts that the HO did not properly consider substantial impacts of traffic and/or street <br />widening and improvements on neighboring properties in the context of the above criterion. The <br />appellant points out that the HO relied on his findings for EC 9.8320(12), but failed to provide specific <br />findings for EC 9.8320(13), and incorporates related arguments here from Appeal Issue 5. The <br />appellant states that the HO ignored the evidence of Mr. Simon Trautman regarding an accident on <br />River Road at the intersection of Oakleigh Lane (see Exhibit PH-49), when the HO found that there was <br />no evidence of traffic issues in the record. The appellant asserts that the development doubles the <br />number of trips on Oakleigh Lane and therefore the impacts of the development are not minimal. <br />Again, the appellant also refers to Appeal Issue 10 regarding PW referral comments, asserting that the <br />HO and staff failed to consider and properly apply the substantial evidence. <br />The appellant also argues that the proposed screening is inadequate, states that the proposed PUD <br />pushes buildings, garages, barns and other structures to the edge of the property, requiring <br />modifications to the setbacks on three sides. The appellant claims that the HO did not understand the <br />context of the neighborhood, which includes smaller homes, and how the proposal is not harmonious <br />and reasonably compatible with the neighborhood. <br />Staff notes that the HO did not entirely rely on his findings under EC 9.8320(12) as the appellant <br />asserts. He specifically responded to EC 9.8320(13) with discussion of relevant LUBA case law that <br />notes the inherently subjective nature of this criterion, and his determination as follows: <br />Here, a finding that the proposed PUD is incompatible and inharmonious despite having <br />complied with all applicable provisions of EC 9.8320 would, at least in this case, be logically <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 9 <br />