Attachment D <br />Under Sub-assignment 10.C, the appellant asserts that the HO used erroneous data for traffic counts in <br />one or more places. The appellant asserts that the estimated ADT is 712 for 29 dwellings, but also says <br />"the actual number is 169 new vehicle trips per day for 29 additional residential units." The appellant <br />claims the HO confused ITE-ADT, as being round trips, with the City-ADT, which are one-way trips. <br />While this appears to relate to arguments above about significant traffic impacts, the relevance of this <br />alleged error is unclear in the appeal statement as it does not identify any related approval criteria to <br />which the argument applies. If the PC agrees that the HO erred in his calculation of ADT, then the PC <br />should determine whether to modify the findings to resolve the error. <br />Regarding sub-assignment 10.D, the applicant's October 16, 2013 submittals being challenged by the <br />appellant are identified in the record as Exhibits PT.R-4 through PT.R-9, consisting of the following: <br />information submitted by the applicant's surveyor regarding the historical establishment of the <br />Oakleigh Lane right-of-way; information submitted by the co-housing consultant regarding gravel <br />parking spaces; information submitted by the applicant's engineer regarding stormwater; information <br />submitted by the applicant's engineer regarding trip street classification and trip generation; a <br />summary response from the applicant; and the applicant's attorney's submittal of an excerpt of the <br />Arterial and Collector Street Plan. On October 16, 2013, Mr. Conte submitted an objection to this <br />information as being impermissible new evidence, with a request that the HO reject the documents or <br />re-open the record to allow new evidence and an additional rebuttal period, asserting that the record <br />was closed to new evidence on October 9, 2013 (Exhibit PT.R-1). <br />Staff contacted the HO and the applicant regarding Mr. Conte's request. The HO indicated that the <br />clearest way to resolve this allegation would be to reopen the record, which was his preference; but he <br />was not inclined to reopen the record on his own authority given the time constraints under statutory <br />requirements. The applicant did not wish to re-open the record or to grant a timeline extension to <br />enable an extended record period. On October 23, 2013, the applicant's attorney, Zack Mittge, <br />submitted a letter arguing that the rebuttal deadline of October 16, 2013, allowed the submission of <br />evidence and testimony in response to materials introduced into the record on or before October 9, <br />2013. On October 25, 2013, Mr. Conte submitted a letter asserting that Mr. Mittge misstates the <br />allowance and provides a partial transcript of the recording meeting with Ken Helm's specific <br />instructions on the open record period. <br />On November 5, 2013, the HO issued an Order Denying Reopening the Evidentiary Record, which <br />details the above chain of events and clarifies his position on the matter (Exhibit PC-2). The extent to <br />which the HO relied on the contested information is unclear; he states: <br />While the Hearings Official declined to reopen the record, I made no decision on the <br />question of whether to rely on the six documents that Mr. Conte objected to. That <br />November 5, 2013 order is incorporated into this decision by this reference. Where the <br />Hearings Official has relied on the disputed evidence, I have explained why the evidence is <br />admissible under the rules set for the open record period. (HO Decision, Page 4) <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 14 <br />