Attachment D <br />whether the HO correctly interpreted the limited scope of EC 9.8320(5) as it relates to the appellants <br />arguments about each subsection. In other words, did he correctly read the criterion to mean that if <br />the standards are met under each subsection of EC 9.8320(5) that, a "safe and adequate transportation <br />system" will result? This determination will assist the resolution of sub-assignments of error below, <br />relating to street connectivity and cul-de-sac length standards, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and <br />traffic impact analysis. <br />The HO's decision granted exceptions to the cul-de-sac and street connectivity standards (see HO <br />Decision, Pages 19-20 and 25), based on the applicant's local street connection study showing how <br />adjacent lands to the north (Tax Lot 200) could be further developed in a flag lot configuration with <br />only partial right-of-way dedication, and ending Oakleigh Lane with an emergency turnaround rather <br />than further extending the street. The appellant asserts that the HO erred in finding that this would <br />adequately serve Tax Lot 200, despite severely limiting future development of that lot, and that the <br />study should have been required to evaluate full build-out potential of the entire area. The appellant <br />further asserts that this is an exaction from the owner of Tax Lot 200 to the benefit of the applicant, <br />without the constitutional standards for such an exaction. <br />The appellant further asserts that the HO did not adequately explain how the exception meets EC <br />9.6815(1)(a) and (e). These requirements refer to the purpose and intent statements for the street <br />connectivity standards, which must be met under the requested exception at EC 9.6815(2)(g)1.a. The <br />HO adopted the staff findings on this matter, which included the following: <br />Public Works staff confirms that the applicant's alternative street plan, along with their <br />narrative that addresses the intent statements at EC 9.6815(1), an exception is warranted <br />pursuant to EC 9.6815(2)(g)(1). (HO Decision, Page 19) <br />For reference, the applicant's narrative referenced in the Public Works comments above, and therefore <br />relied upon by the HO in granting the exception, including findings that address the purpose and intent <br />statements at EC 9.6815(1)(a) and (e)(see PH-63, Pages 2-3). The PC should also review these findings <br />from the applicant's street connection study in determining whether the HO erred in granting the <br />exception. <br />The HO also granted an exception to the 400-foot maximum cul-de-sac length, stating that the street <br />connectivity exception warrants it based on EC 9.6820(5)(b). The appellant points out that the <br />exception under (5)(b) relates only to buildings or other physical conditions that preclude a street, <br />which is not the case with extending Oakleigh Lane. The appellant asserts that these conditions are not <br />met, but that even if there were no feasible alternative connection, that situation would only justify an <br />exception to EC 9.6820(3), regarding the 400-foot cul-de-sac length, and not EC 9.6820(1), regarding <br />dead-end streets longer than 150 feet ending in a turnaround, and not EC 9.6820(4), regarding a public <br />accessway at the end of the turnaround. Staff notes that the decision includes conditions for right-of- <br />way dedication for both a future turnaround and public accessway along the entire north property line. <br />Here, the PC should consider whether the exceptions met the applicable approval criteria. If the PC <br />disagrees with the HO, then the PC may want to consider conditions for extending Oakleigh Lane <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 3 <br />