45 <br />1 the acknowledged impacts from increased traffic. <br />2 The Hearings Official cobbles up an approach that has no foundation in <br />3 the code and doesn't follow the ORS 174.010 and "PGE" rules for statutory <br />4 construction. The basis of his interpretation is the following assumption: <br />5 "[I]t makes no sense that the City Council would ask an applicant to go <br />6 through the analysis in EC 9.8320(5) and potentially complete a TIA if the <br />7 proposed PUD could be denied for having `some' impacts on the <br />8 transportation system." Rec 72. <br />9 If Council had intended that a proposed development that satisfied EC 9.8320(5) <br />10 and/or a TIA was therefore a development that had minimal offsite impacts from <br />11 increased traffic, then Council could have written that into the code. But they <br />12 didn't. Instead EC 9.8320(12) explicitly identifies "impacts such as traffic." The <br />13 Hearings Official and EPC cannot render the clear legislative intent of <br />14 EC 9.8320(12) meaningless because of the EC 9.8320(5) or TIA requirements. <br />15 Furthermore, the Hearings Official statement that it "makes no sense" is <br />16 mere hand-waving and cannot substitute for the required explanation of how <br />17 satisfying a TIA would necessarily satisfy the "minimal impacts" requirement. <br />18 A cursory examination of the TIA requirements would have proven the <br />19 Hearings Official's assumption wrong because, by providing adequate <br />20 infrastructure improvements to accommodate increased traffic, a development <br />21 can have huge traffic impacts and still be considered safe and meet the TIA <br />