Accordingly, the appellant's Fifth Assignment of Error provides no basis <br />for reversal or remand, and the Planning Commission should affirm the <br />Hearings Official's decision. <br />6. The Appellant Fails to Identify Any Error in the Hearings Official's <br />Findings Under EC 9.8320(13) Concerning Reasonably Compatible <br />and Harmonious Development. <br />The appellant argues under its Sixth Assignment of Error that the <br />Hearings Official failed to properly evaluate the traffic impacts from the <br />proposed development when determining whether it was "reasonably <br />compatible and harmonious"' under EC 9.8320(13), and asserts generally that <br />development is not adequately screened and will "stick out like a sore thumb." <br />The Hearings Official interpreted EC 9.8320(13) consistently with an <br />approved interpretation of the same provision in the case of Northgreen Property, <br />LLC v. City of Eugene, 65 Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2011-099, March 5, 2012). HO <br />Decision, p. 54. In that case, LUBA found that a cell tower was "reasonably <br />compatible and harmonious" when it met the objective standards set out for such <br />towers and was screened from view. The Hearings Official expressly adhered to <br />this approach. With regard to traffic he expressly incorporated findings that the <br />proposal conformed to objective provisions of the Eugene Code.' With regard to <br />screening, the Hearings Official had already made detailed findings that <br />established that the proposed development was adequately screened. HO <br />Decision, p. 9-14. He determined that the PUD complied with "all the applicable <br />provisions of EC 9.8320" and was further persuaded: <br />"that the proposed co-house will be compatible and harmonious for the <br />following reasons: 1) the development will be at the end of the street <br />where comparatively fewer property owners along Oakleigh Lane will be <br />affected visually, 2) the scale of the buildings, as the applicant points out, <br />are within the range of typical single family homes. The applicant states <br />that the common house is similar in size to a large home and the other <br />buildings are similar to smaller single family homes, 3) the proposed <br />density is less than the maximum and the proposed height is less than the <br />maximum height allowed, and 4) the proposed use is residential (as <br />opposed to some conditional use allowed in the zone)." HO Decision, p. <br />55. <br />'The appellant also reiterates its argument concerning the PWD analysis for the <br />exaction. However, as the Hearings Official explained, the PWD analysis <br />provided the basis for an exaction of property to allow the future improvement <br />of Oakleigh Lane to current standards. It did not establish that the street had to <br />be widened along its entire length. <br />'The appellant accuses the Hearings Official of "ignoring the evidence of Mr. <br />Simon Trautman" to find that there was "no evidence" of traffic issues. <br />However, this misstates the Hearings Official's holding. The Hearings Official <br />found that there was no evidence of traffic problems associated with the "modest <br />increase in total vehicle trips." Mr. Trautman's testimony is not evidence of <br />traffic issues associated with the increase in trips. <br />242 8 <br />