"The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including impacts such as <br />traffic noise, stormwater runoff and environmental quality." <br />The PC finds that the HO properly interpreted the meaning of "minimal off-site impacts" and did not <br />err with regard to traffic impacts. The PC has previously determined, under the second assignment of <br />error, that the constitutional findings in the PW referral comments are limited to justification for a <br />proportional right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the subject property that would <br />accommodate future public street improvements. As such, the PC disagrees with appellant; these <br />findings cannot be taken out of context as asserted, to mean that traffic impacts would be so <br />substantial as to violate the requirements of EC 9.8320(12). <br />The PC finds that the HO was correct in adopting the staff findings to address the traffic component of <br />EC 9.8320(12), in which Public Works staff confirmed the following: the development will have minimal <br />off-site traffic impacts; that Oakleigh Lane currently provides for safe passage of two-way and <br />emergency vehicles; and, no street improvements are required of the development at this time, <br />although right-of-way dedication and an Irrevocable Petition are being required to enable future public <br />improvements. Public comments about the accident at the intersection of Oakleigh Lane and River <br />Road are not on the City's inventory of intersections with high crash ratings that would otherwise <br />warrant analysis to determine patterns that could be mitigated by infrastructure improvements. (HO <br />Decision, Page 50). The HO findings on pages 50-53 are hereby incorporated by reference as further <br />evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. <br />With regard to the design of the development, however, the PC finds that the allowance for reduced <br />setbacks along the north and west property lines does not have a "minimal off-site impact". The PC <br />addresses these concerns in the sixth assignment of error, below, which is incorporated by reference. <br />With those findings and conditions that modify the HO's decision, the PUD will comply with EC <br />9.8320(12). <br />Sixth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(13) <br />"The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and harmonious with adiacent <br />and nearby land uses." <br />The PC generally agrees with the HO's findings of compliance under EC 9.8320(13), as addressed on <br />pages 54-55 of his decision. The PC finds that the HO did not ignore or misinterpret the evidence <br />regarding an accident on River Road at the intersection of Oakleigh Lane, and did not misinterpret the <br />requirements of EC 9.8320(12) regarding "minimal off-site impacts" related to traffic. As also discussed <br />under the second and third assignments of error, the PC concludes that the HO did not err, based on <br />the available evidence that the traffic generated by the proposed PUD is acceptable under the approval <br />criteria and does not warrant additional right-of-way or street improvements beyond what has already <br />been required. The Hearings Official was correct in adopting the related findings under EC 9.8320(12), <br />with regard to arguments about traffic impact also made under EC 9.8320(13). As such, the PC <br />concludes that traffic generated from the PUD will be reasonably compatible and harmonious with <br />adjacent and nearby land uses as required by EC 9.8320(13). The HO findings on pages 53-55 are <br />hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria <br />(00109077;1) DRAFT Final Order Page 6 <br />