Decision at 275 <br />Here again, the Hearings Official erroneously ignores the fact that - if <br />additional right-of-way and improvements on the south side of the <br />turnaround are necessary "to separate pedestrians from vehicles and provide <br />a safe public walking surface for the residents" - then similar separation and <br />walking surface would be necessary along the rest of Oakleigh Lane to ensure <br />pedestrian safety and comfort. Whether that's feasible, or how it might be <br />achieved, does not alter the PWD conclusions for what is necessary for <br />pedestrian safety and comfort. <br />SUBASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 10.B <br />The Hearings Official erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane was not an <br />"access lane." <br />"The Hearings Official considers Staff's categorization [of Oakleigh Lane <br />as a "Low Volume Residential Street] to be more accurate given the <br />increase in ADT moves the lane into the 250-750 ADT range." (Decision at <br />25) <br />The Hearings Official is using the projected traffic volume for his conclusion, <br />as is made clear by the phrase "moves the lane into the 250-750 ADT range." <br />The current classification is, however, as an access lane. The move from a <br />lower- to a higher-volume category of street is evidence that the off-site <br />impacts of traffic would not be "minimal" as the Hearings Official <br />erroneously concluded for EC 9.8320(12). <br />See Conte 10/9 pages 4 to 5. <br />SUBASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 10.C <br />The Hearings Official used erroneous data for traffic counts in one or more <br />places, including, but not limited to, the following. <br />"the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) would be greater than 500 trips per <br />day" (Decision at 19) <br />"As to Mr. Conte's assertion that the Staff's own findings concede that pedestrian and <br />bicycle traffic will not be assured safe use of Oakleigh Lane, the Hearings Official <br />disagrees. PT-4. The statement Mr. Conte alights on is a finding related to explaining <br />the justification for the dedication required under EC 9.8320(5)(a). Staff's conclusions <br />are properly understood to require the proposed PUD to dedicate sufficient right-of- <br />way along the subject property's frontage to allow Oakleigh Lane to be brought up to <br />the low volume residential street standard along that frontage." <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 20 November 22, 2013 <br />