ER-28 <br />1 In Conte's second assignment of error, we understand Conte to argue <br />2 that the hearings officer's interpretation of EC 9.8320(12) misconstrues the <br />3 provision and equates a finding of compliance with EC 9.8320(5), discussed <br />4 below, with a finding of compliance with EC 9.8320(12). We also understand <br />5 Conte to challenge the hearings officer's reliance on the same evidence that he <br />6 relied on to conclude (1) that EC 9.8320(5) is met, (2) that a traffic impact <br />7 analysis would not be required under EC 9.6870, and (2) that no level of <br />8 service deficiencies would occur, and to challenge the hearings officer's failure <br />9 to rely on other evidence introduced by opponents in determining that the PUD <br />10 will have minimal impacts on traffic off-site. <br />11 Meadows responds, and we agree, that a reasonable person could find, <br />12 based on the evidence in the' record, that the PUD will have minimal impact on <br />13 traffic off-site, particularly given the inherently subjective nature of the <br />14 criterion. Moreover, -the hearings officer's reliance.on the same evidence that <br />15 he relied on to find compliance with EC 9.8320(5) and that a TIA is not <br />16 required is not error, and is not unusual where the two criteria require <br />17 evaluation of similar evidence. We cannot say that the hearings officer's <br />18 findings are inadequate or represent an erroneous interpretation and application <br />19 of EC 9.8320(12). <br />20 This portion of Conte's second assignment of error is denied. <br />21 G. Conclusion <br />22 The portions of Neighbors' second and third assignments of error that <br />23 challenge the city's finding that the eastern boundary of the PUD complies with <br />24 EC 9.8320(3) because it provides adequate screening from the surrounding <br />25 parkland to the east are sustained. <br />Page 28 <br />000077 <br />