22 <br />1 Accordingly, the City reasonably determined that the PUD had minimal off-site <br />2 impacts, and the intervenor's second assignment of error should be denied. <br />3 RESPONSE TO THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />4 The City Did Not Err in Concluding That Traffic from the PUD <br />5 Would Be Reasonably Compatible and Harmonious with Adjacent <br />6 and Nearby Land Uses. <br />7 Under his final assignment of error, the intervenor argues that the City <br />8 erred in finding that the PUD would be reasonably compatible and harmonious <br />9 under EC 9.8320(13) where the proposal would increase traffic on Oakleigh <br />10 Lane. <br />11 The City found: <br />12 "As to arguments about traffic impacts, the Hearings Official adopts <br />13 findings for EC 9.8320(12) here by this reference. Evidence of a <br />14 modest increase in total vehicle trips, where there is no evidence of <br />15 associated traffic problems, is sufficient to demonstrate that the <br />16 proposed PUD will be compatible with adjacent and nearby uses." <br />17 Rec. 401. <br />18 The intervenor urges that the traffic would not be "compatible" or <br />19 "harmonious" because public works staff determined that the increase would <br />20 "create unsafe conditions on Oakleigh Lane." Brief, p. 50. However, public <br />21 works staff found precisely the opposite stating that it had: <br />22 "no concerns related to traffic safety issues or poor service levels <br />23 which will result from this development." Rec. 1265. <br />24 <br />25 Accordingly, the intervenor fails to demonstrate any error under his third <br />26 assignment of error and the same should be denied. <br />