''The purpose of those sections of the code are set forth in EC 9.6800 and states: '[s]ections <br />9.6800 through 9.6875 establish standards for the dedication, design and location of public <br />ways to address the purpose of this land use code contained in EC 9.0020 Purpose.' <br />"The opponents [sic] arguments fundamentally misconstrue the requirement of EC <br />9.8320(5)(a) which is to ensure that a proposed development is capable of dedicating <br />sufficient land along the property frontage to meet the right-of-way width requirements for <br />that street designation. <br />But, in any case, the record amply demonstrates that the applicant is both willing and able to <br />dedicate land along the northwest corner of the subject property and adjacent to Oakleigh <br />Lane for the purpose of providing sufficient right away and a public accessway. Nothing more <br />is required bV EC 9.8320(5)(a). <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) [sic] because that <br />provision is a standard for the "dedication" of land, not a "service" standard akin to level of <br />service - LOS. Neither does EC 9.8320(5)(a) require the neighbors to now dedicate a portion <br />of their property to the widening of the right-of-way or paved surface of Ookleigh Lane." <br />(Decision at 24-25, emphasis added) <br />Although, the Decision cites to the purpose in EC 9.6800, the Hearings Official failed entirely to <br />cite or evaluate EC 9.0020 Purpose, which states: <br />"The purpose of the land use code is to protect and promote the health, La et and general <br />welfare of the public..." (Emphasis added) <br />The proper. interpretation that the Hearings Official should have applied is that the purpose of . <br />EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 is to establish standards for the dedication and design and location of <br />public ways to "protect and promote the health, safety' and general welfare of the public." <br />Furthermore, a valid decision must ensure these standards are or will be met in an adequate way <br />to satisfy their intended purpose. <br />The Hearings Official also erred when he set up a false dichotomy in presenting EC 9.8320(5)(a) as <br />a "standard for the 'dedication' of land, not a.'service' standard akin to level of service - LOS." As <br />is explicitly stated in both EC' 9. 8320(5), as well as by EC 9.6800 and EC 9.0020 - the applicable <br />standards are to ensure the "PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems" and <br />"protects and promotes the safety of the public." Safety is the core purpose of the standards, <br />not "dedication" or ".LOS." <br />The Decision therefore erroneously limited the scope of EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875, to <br />"dedications" solely by the applicant, and the Hearings Official neglected to evaluate, and impose <br />conditions, as necessary to ensure that the safety of vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians using <br />Oakleigh Lane would be protected and promoted. <br />Conte Testimony - December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 8 <br />264 <br />