Attachment B <br />Hearings Official Conclusions <br />The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for EC 9.8815(1) and adopts <br />those findings by this reference - consistent with the findings set forth below. <br />For the purposes of EC 9.8815(1), the Hearings Official agrees with the opponents that <br />the proposed PUD is a change in use and an intensification in use. Those facts make EC <br />9.8815(1) applicable and raises the question of just how much landscaped area must be <br />provided to comply with the greenway protections. It is relevant that the subject property is <br />over 50 feet from the regulated resource area, and that a large stand of trees exist between the <br />river and the subject property. Nevertheless, those factors do not necessitate denying the <br />proposal or requiring a complete reconfiguration, as opponents suggest, simply because the <br />parking area is proposed for the western portion of the property. <br />For the most part, the site plan shows the bulk of the interior open space on the east side of the <br />development. That alone is consistent with EC 9.8815(1). The distance to the river, and the <br />fact that persons travelling along the river corridor (mostly on the bike path) will not be able to <br />see the development also militate toward approving the PUD as proposed. That being said, the <br />Hearings Official found under EC 9.8320(3) that additional landscaping and screening is <br />required along the eastern boundary - at least enough to adequately screen Building 2 . That <br />condition will also support compliance with EC 9.8815(1). With the condition imposed under EC <br />9.8320(3), the PUD will provide the maximum possible landscaped area between the <br />development and the river. <br />EC 9.8815(2): To the greatest possible degree, necessary and adequate public access <br />will be provided to and along the river by appropriate legal means. <br />Staff Findings <br />The applicant's plans show pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the development via <br />interconnected paths between the buildings and bicycle parking areas. The applicant notes that <br />there is an existing worn path along the north property line, between the Oakleigh Lane roadway <br />and the east property line, abutting the City parklands. The applicant proposes to keep this path <br />open, but does not explicitly show any dedications to the public to enable continued access. Right- <br />of-way dedication is required over this area, to enable continued public access, pursuant to the <br />concurrent PUD approval criterion EC 9. 8320(5), the findings and conditions of which are <br />incorporated by reference. <br />The applicant also proposes to stub a soft path to the southeast corner of the site. The segment of <br />the internal sidewalk system that is located between the most easterly building (a bike barn) and <br />the east property line is shown as having a graveled, rather than a paved, surface. This unimproved <br />surface is appropriate because there are no plans or funding for construction of a public_path on <br />the City property at this location. Residents of the development will naturally want to walk across <br />the City parkland toward the river. Parks staff state no objections or concerns. This proposed path <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 57 <br />