Attachment D <br />through the PUD to provide Tax Lot 200 with more street frontage and to enable a future connection <br />with East Hillard Lane (to the north) when Tax Lot 200 further develops. <br />The appellant also claims that the HO failed to. consider the evidence provided in the Public Works <br />(PW) referral comments (this is further argued under Appeal Issue 10). Staff notes that the PW <br />comments included constitutional findings to support the right-of-way exaction (see pages 2-4 of <br />Exhibit PH-30). The HO addressed this as follows: <br />Oakleigh Lane need not have a dedicated 45 foot right-of-way and associated paved surface <br />from River Road to the subject property in order to meet EC 9.8320(5)(a) because that provision <br />is a standard for the "dedication" of land, not a "service" standard akin to level of service - LOS. <br />Neither does EC 9.8320(5)(a) require the neighbors to now dedicate a portion of their property <br />to the widening of the right-of-way or paved surface of Oakleigh Lane. (HO Decision, Page 25) <br />The appellant asserts that the PW comments are more than justification for the right-of-way exaction; <br />that they are evidence of pedestrian safety concerns on Oakleigh Lane. Regarding pedestrian, bicycle, <br />and transit circulation, the HO states: <br />The Hearings Official also concurs with the applicant's October 23, 2013 final argument that <br />the queuing effect of having a single travel lane along Oakleigh Lane is likely to result in lower <br />speeds and acceptably safe conditions for pedestrians. <br />It is reasonable to expect that the queuing effect identified in the ACSP will work to calm <br />speeds and provide reasonably safe passage pedestrians if the co-housing is approved (HO <br />Decision, Page 27). <br />In determining whether the HO erred, the PC should consider whether additional requirements such as <br />wider right-of-way and street improvements are necessary to meet the approval criteria, and if so, <br />whether it is feasible and legally justified to establish these requirements as conditions of approval. <br />Alternatively, the PC could make findings to explain how the approval criteria have not been met. <br />The appellant also asserts that PW comments support the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis <br />(TIA) (see page 8 of the Appeal Statement). Regarding TIA requirements, the HO states: <br />EC 9.8320(5)(c) invokes EC 9.8670 on the question of when a TIA may be required to <br />support a PUD application. There are three primary circumstances in which a TIA may be <br />required: 1) when the development will generate more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips, 2) <br />when the increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute to traffic <br />problems in the area based on current accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds that <br />warrant action, and 3) where approval of the development will result in level-of-service <br />failures of the roadway system in the vicinity. If none of these conditions will result from <br />approval of the PUD, then the code does not require a TIA and the City cannot force an <br />applicant to provide one (HO Decision, Page 28). <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 4 <br />