29 <br />applicable": <br />"(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC <br />9.8650 through 9.8680 where applicable." <br />Because the City concluded that the provisions of subsection (c) were not <br />applicable (a determination that is not at issue in this appeal), that subsection is <br />useful only to demonstrate a consistent structure with the rest of the ordinance <br />section. In particular, the requirements for a Traffic Impact Analysis Review <br />("TIA") in EC 9.8650 requires an evaluation of whether a development will <br />"contribute to traffic problems in the area, or result in levels of service of the <br />roadway system in the vicinity of the development." In short, a TIA requires <br />the analysis of land beyond just what is within the boundaries of the PUD. <br />After reviewing this provision, LUBA concluded that: <br />"The plain language of EC 9.8320(5) requires the city to determine <br />that `the PUD' meets the standards in (a). It does not require `all <br />streets serving the PUD' to meet the standards if those streets are <br />not located within the PUD." ER p 31 <br />Despite this narrow interpretation of EC 9.8320(5)(a), LUBA acknowledged <br />that, in contrast, EC 9.8320(5)(b) explicitly requires consideration of lands <br />outside the boundaries of the proposed PUD. LUBA never identified what <br />standards would apply in the evaluation of EC 9.8320(5)(b), nor did LUBA <br />explain how the restricted scope that LUBA attributed to EC 9.8320(5)(a) <br />squared with the explicitly broader scope LUBA acknowledged for <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />