49 <br />1 This interpretation would make EC 9.8320(13) superfluous and conflicts with <br />2 ORS 174.010. ("where there are several provisions or particulars such <br />3 construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.") <br />4 The Hearings Official's entire evaluation of whether the traffic that <br />5 would arise from 29 new dwellings at the end of the road would be reasonably <br />6 compatible and harmonious was as follows: <br />7 "As to arguments about traffic impacts, the Hearing Official adopts the <br />8 findings for EC 9.8320(12) here by this reference. Evidence of a modest <br />9 increase in total vehicle trips, where there is no evidence of associated <br />10 traffic problems, is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed PUD will be <br />11 compatible with adjacent and nearby uses." Rec 75. <br />12 The Hearings Official also adopted the staff findings for this criterion, but the <br />13 staff findings did nothing more than equate "minimal off-site impacts" with <br />14 "reasonably compatible," with no further explanation: <br />15 "As noted at EC 9.8320(5)(c) in regards to traffic, the proposed <br />16 development will have minimal off-site impacts related to traffic Based <br />17 on the above findings, the development is reasonably compatible with the <br />18 nearby land uses." Rec 74. <br />19 The referenced staff findings at EC 9.8320(5)(c) don't actually address <br />20 "minimal off-site impacts" and consequently provide no evidence, analysis or <br />21 explanations demonstrating the application's consistency with EC 9.8320(13). <br />22 The Hearings Official's reliance on his findings for EC 9.8320(12) are <br />23 also inadequate as explained under that criterion supra. Furthermore, by <br />24 ORS 174.010, "compatibility" and "harmony" must be given independent <br />