50 <br />1 meaning from "minimal offsite impacts," which the Decision failed to do. <br />2 Doubling of traffic, which the PWD analysis concludes would create <br />3 unsafe conditions on Oakleigh Lane, cannot be considered "compatible" or <br />4 "harmonious" and falls short of any reasonable application of EC 9.8320(13). <br />5 The decision must be remanded for the City to provide a reasonable <br />6 interpretation that gives independent meaning to "compatible" and <br />7 "harmonious" with respect to nearby single-family homes and to adequately <br />8 evaluate what level of noise, headlight glare, dust and other concrete impacts <br />9 arising from development traffic would remain "compatible" and <br />10 "harmonious." In addition, the City must explain why the substantial potential <br />11 safety impacts that were used as the basis for the exaction of right-of-way are <br />12 not evidence of incompatibility and/or disharmony with the current residents, <br />13 pedestrians and bicyclists residing along and/or using Oakleigh Lane. <br />14 <br />V. CONCLUSION <br />15 LUBA must remand the Decision for the City to provide adequate findings and <br />16 conditions of approval to ensure the PUD meets approval criteria or is denied. <br />17 DATED this 16th day of June, 2014, <br />18 By: <br />19 Paul Conte <br />20 Intervenor-Respondents <br />