Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 9 <br />(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through <br />9.8680 where applicable." <br />As the Hearings Official explained: <br />"The opponents have raised numerous 'safety' concerns and arguments that go <br />well beyond the fundamental requirement of EC 9.8320(5). The very structure f <br />EC 9.8320(5) does not require an applicant to prove that a proposed <br />development will be safe from any and all asserted or imagined traffic safety <br />threats. The language of EC 9.8320(5) states: "[t]he PUD provides safe and <br />adequate transportation systems through compliance with the with the <br />following:." The underlined section demonstrates that the provision is limited <br />by its own words to a requirement showing three things: a) that EC 9:6800 <br />through 9.6875 can be met, b) that pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation can <br />be achieved, and c) that if necessary a Traffic Impact Analysis has been done <br />and mitigation provided. In other words, thee adopted provisions of EC <br />9.8320(5) assume that if those three criteria can be met, a 'safe and adequate <br />transportation system' will result." Hearings Official Decision, p. 24: LUBA Rec. <br />44. <br />The Planning Commission affirmed the Hearings Official's Decision stating: <br />"The PC finds that the HO was correct in his application of EC 9.8320(5), as <br />being limited in scope to compliance with the following: a) that EC 9.6800 • <br />through 9.6875 can be met, b) that pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation can <br />be achieved, and c) that if necessary a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been <br />done and mitigation provided." Final Order, p. 3; LUBA Rec. 8. <br />LUBA affirmed the Planning Commission: <br />"The planning commission found that compliance with EC 9.8320(5) is <br />demonstrated by compliance with subsections (a), (b), and (c), and that EC <br />9.8320(5) does not contain an independent requirement to determine whether a <br />PUD provides a "safe and adequate transportation system" beyond <br />determining compliance with (a), (b), and (c). The planning commission also <br />rejected Conte's interpretation of EC 9.8320(5)(a) as requiring the entirety of <br />Oakleigh Lane to meet existing right-of-way standards and be improved to city <br />standards: <br />Respondents respond that the planning commission's interpretation of EC <br />9.8320(5) is correct, and that nothing in the EC requires that entirety of Oakleigh <br />Lane to meet the standards in EC 9.8320(5) in order for the PUD to be approved. <br />We agree with respondents. The plain language of EC 9.8320(5) requires the <br />city to determine that "the PUD".meets the standards in (a). It does not require <br />"all streets serving the PUD" to meet the standards if those streets are not <br />located within the PUD. In addition, the EC 9.6870 requirements for right of <br />312 <br />432 <br />