48 <br />1 other concrete impacts from the undisputed near doubling of vehicle trips along <br />2 Oakleigh Lane. In addition, the City must explain why the substantial potential <br />3 impacts that were used as the basis for the exaction of right-of-way are not <br />4 indicative of greater "risk" - and thus significant impacts - to individuals <br />5 residing along or using Oakleigh Lane. <br />6 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />7 The City erred in finding that the proposed PUD would be reasonably <br />8 compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses, as <br />9 required by EC 9.8320(13). <br />10 Issue raised below. The appeal issues were raised below in testimony before <br />11 the Hearings Official (Rec 882) and in the local appeal statement (Rec 333). <br />12 Standard of review. The standard of review is the same as stated under the <br />13 First Assignment of Error, which is incorporated here by reference. <br />14 Argument. The City erred in finding the PUD met the approval criterion: <br />15 EC 9.8320(13) The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible <br />16 and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. <br />17 The EPC generally relied upon the Hearings Official's findings. Rec 11. <br />18 The Hearings Official relied primarily on an untenable conclusion: <br />19 "Here, a finding that the proposed PUD is incompatible and unharmonious <br />20 despite having complied with all the applicable provisions of EC 9.8320 <br />21 would, at least in this case, be logically and legally indefensible." Rec 74. <br />