Attachment D <br />representatives on October 16, 2013, without providing an opportunity for opponents to <br />respond, despite the timely, written request by Paul Conte. <br />Under sub-assignment 10.A, the appellant asserts that the HO unreasonably concluded that the <br />constitutional findings included in the staff findings and the PW referral comments (Pages 2-4 of <br />Exhibit PH-30) had no applicability other than the abutting street segment because the findings were <br />used only to justify exactions from the applicant. The appellant argues that if the portion of Oakleigh <br />Lane adjacent to the development must be widened and improved to ensure the safe and convenient <br />accommodation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on Oakleigh Lane after the development is <br />built, then the long stretch of Oakleigh Lane between River Road and the development site would also <br />have to be widened and improved in a corresponding manner. The appellant states that whether or <br />not this is feasible, how that might be accomplished, and what exactions can be required of the <br />applicant are entirely separate issues from engineering and safety issues. The appellant asserts that <br />issue is: either all of Oakleigh Lane needs comparable right-of-way width and improvements as those <br />being exacted from the applicant alongside the development site, or it isn't necessary to require the <br />right-of-way and improvements adjacent to the development site. The appellant notes that there is <br />nothing in the record that suggests that there is something special about the short stretch alongside <br />the development. <br />The above arguments are repeated in Appeal Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. If the PC disagrees with the <br />HO and finds that components of the constitutional findings for the right-of-way required from the <br />PUD constitute evidence of a bigger safety issue or that the justification must be applied to the <br />entire length of Oakleigh Lane, then the PC should consider whether additional requirements such <br />as wider right-of-way and improvements are necessary to meet the approval criteria being <br />challenged under Appeal Issues 1 through 6. As noted under those appeal issues, staff believes the <br />PC would need to justify the feasibility and legality of those additional conditions of approval. <br />Alternatively, the PC could make findings to explain how the approval criteria have not been met. <br />Under sub-assignment 10.13, the appellant claims that the current classification of Oakleigh Lane is an <br />access lane and that moving it to a higher volume classification because of the traffic generated by the <br />development is further evidence that it is not a "minimal" impact under EC 9.8320(12). The HO found <br />this classification distinction to be insignificant, based on the following: <br />Whether or not Staff have miscategorized Oakleigh Lane as a low volume residential street, and <br />the Hearings Official does not agree that a mistake was made, is of no consequence because <br />Table 9.6870 shows right-of-ways in the range of 40' to 55' for both access lanes, and low <br />volume residential streets. The Hearings Official considers Staff's categorization to be more <br />accurate given the increase in ADT moves the lane into the 250-750 ADT range. But, in any <br />case, the record amply demonstrates that the applicant is both willing and able to dedicate land <br />along the northwest corner of the subject property and adjacent to Oakleigh Lane for the <br />purpose of providing sufficient right away and a public accessway... (HO Decision, Page 25). <br />If the PC disagrees with the HO about the significance of the traffic generated by the development, <br />then the PC would need to make findings to explain how EC 9.8320(12) is not met. <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 13 <br />