Attachment D <br />SUMMARY OF APPEAL ISSUES <br />Ten appeal issues were raised by the appellant, which are summarized below with relevant excerpts <br />from the. Hearings Official's (HO) decision and appeal statement, and references to other related <br />evidence or testimony in the record. To assist the Planning Commission (PC) in determining whether <br />to affirm, reverse, or modify the decision, staff has provided some initial suggestions below for how <br />the commission might address each appeal issue, in deciding whether to affirm, reverse or modify the <br />decision. <br />1. First Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding that the application met EC 9.83200) <br />"The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error I.A: the Decision failed to address the following policy at all: <br />TransPlan Transportation System Improvements (TSP) Pedestrian Policy #1 <br />Pedestrian Environment (Metro Plan Policy F.26) <br />Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land <br />uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking <br />(Metro Plan 111-F-9) <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 1.8: the Decision failed to address the following policy at all: <br />TransPlan Finance Policy #4: New Development (Metro Plan Policy F.36) <br />Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on the transportation <br />system. (Metro Plan 111-F-13) <br />The appellant asserts that the HO failed to consider these policies, and to include adequate conditions <br />of approval for sufficient right-of-way, sidewalks, and other improvements required for consistency <br />(see pages 2 and 3 of the Appeal Statement). Staff confirms that the HO did not explicitly address <br />these policies, but found that the development complied with the applicable Metro Plan policies, as <br />follows: <br />The findings of the staff report are sufficient to show compliance with EC 9.8320(1) and the <br />Hearings Official adopts them by this reference (HO Decision, Page 8). <br />In regards to the staff report adopted by the HO, the findings do not explicitly address the relevance of <br />Policies F.26 and F.36. As such, the PC should determine if the policies are relevant, and whether or <br />not to make additional findings addressing them. In doing so, staff recommends that the PC also <br />consider these policies in the context of the appellant's arguments under in Appeal Issues 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, <br />and 10. If the PC determines that additional findings or conditions are necessary regarding right-of- <br />way dedication and improvements for transportation facilities, then the above policies could be used <br />as additional support for those requirements. Alternatively, if the PC determines that other related <br />approval criteria are not met, findings could be crafted as further policy support for a reversal of the <br />HO's decision. <br />Summary of Appeal Issues <br />Page 1 <br />