and bicycle travel and emergency response and access will be at risk" with the additional traffic, if <br />Oakleigh Lane is not widened and improved. The Hearings official also failed to explain how <br />tripling the number of instances where a car.traveling along this narrow road passes by the front <br />of one of the single-family residences is a "minimal" impact. (See Conte 10/9, pages 5 and 6.) <br />In summary, the Hearings official utterly-failed to explain a reasonable. standard for "minimal <br />offsite impact," with respect to traffic and failed completely to address the substantial evidence <br />in the record that the traffic generated by PUD residents would have greater than minimal offsite <br />impacts. As such, his finding that the PUD is consistent with EC 9.8320(12) is not sufficient. <br />Under EC 9.8320(13 <br />EC 9.8320(13) requires "[t]he proposed development shall be reasonably. compatible and <br />harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses." . <br />Once again, the Hearings Official leaps to an untenable conclusion: <br />"Here, a finding that the proposed PUD is incompatible and unharmonious despite.having <br />complied with all the applicable provisions of EC 9.8320 would, at least in this case, be <br />logically and legally indefensible." (Decision at 54) <br />This interpretation would make EC 9.8320(13) superfluous and once again conflicts with the <br />ORS 174.010 requirement that: "where there are several provisions or particulars such <br />construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all." <br />The Hearings Official's entire evaluation of whether the traffic that would arise from 29 dwellings <br />at the end of the road would be reasonably compatible and harmonious was as follows: <br />"As to arguments about traffic impacts, the Hearing Official adopts the findings for <br />EC 9.8320(12) here by this reference. Evidence of a modest increase in total vehicle trips, <br />where there is no evidence of associated traffic problems, is sufficient to demonstrate that the <br />proposed PUD will be compatible with adjacent and nearby uses." (Decision at 55.) <br />The Hearings Official also adopted th.e staff findings for this criterion, but the staff findings did <br />nothing more than equate "minimal off-site impacts" with "reasonably compatible," with no <br />further explanation: <br />',4s noted at EC9.8320(5)(c) in regards to traffic, the proposed development will have <br />minimal off-site impacts related to traffic Based on the above findings, the development is <br />reasonably compatible with the nearby land uses." (Decision at 54) <br />The referenced staff findings at EC 9.8320(5)(c) don't even address "minimal off-site impacts." <br />Thus, the staff findings provide no actual evidence, analysis or explanations that have any <br />relevance to the application's consistency with EC 9.8320(13) and are thus not sufficient as <br />findings. <br />The Hearings Official's reliance on his findings for EC 9.8320(12) are inadequate as explained <br />above, under.that criterion. Furthermore, by ORS 174.010, "compatibility" and "harmony" must <br />be given separate meaning than "minimal offsite impacts," which the Hearings Official and staff <br />utterly failed to do.. <br />Conte Testimony- December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 17 <br />273 <br />