ER-25 <br />1 traffic generated by the PUD and challenges the city's findings regarding <br />2 traffic impacts. The hearings officer found. <br />3 "As to arguments about traffic impacts, the Hearing Official <br />4 adopts the findings for EC 9.8320(12) here by this reference. <br />5 Evidence of a modest increase in total vehicle trips, where there is <br />6 no evidence of associated traffic problems, is sufficient to <br />7 demonstrate that the proposed PUD will be compatible with <br />8 adjacent and nearby uses." Record 401. <br />9 Conte argues that the city's public works staff concluded that an increase in <br />10 traffic would create unsafe conditions on Oakleigh Lane, and that the hearings <br />11 officer's findings fail to explain how unsafe traffic conditions are harmonious <br />12 and compatible with the adjacent land uses. Conte also faults the hearings <br />13 officer for relying on the findings regarding a different criterion, EC <br />14 9.8320(12), because according to Conte, the two criteria require -different <br />15 analyses. <br />16 We understand the hearings officer to have concluded, based on the <br />17 evidence in the record from Meadows, the city's public works staff, and others, <br />18 that the proposed PUD is reasonably compatible and. harmonious with the <br />19 adjacent and nearby land uses because the new traffic from the PUD will create <br />20 only a modest increase in vehicle trips. Conte does not point to any evidence in <br />21 the record that contradicts the hearings officer's conclusion that only a modest <br />22 increase in vehicle trips will result from the PUD. A reasonable person could <br />23 find based on the evidence in the record that where only a modest increase in <br />24 vehicle trips is created by a PUD, the PUD is compatible with adjacent and <br />25 nearby land uses, particularly given the inherently subjective nature of the <br />26 criterion. Olson v. City of Springfaeld, 56 Or LUBA 229, 237 (2008). <br />27 Moreover, the hearings officer's reliance on the same evidence that he relied on <br />28 to find compliance with EC 9.8320(12) is not error, and is not particularly <br />Page 25 <br />000074 <br />