Attachment 2 <br />The Hearings Official erred in granting an exception pursuant to <br />EC 9.6820(5). That provision requires a showing either that (a) "physical <br />conditions preclude development" of the street or (b) "buildings or other <br />existing development physically preclude the street." Neither condition <br />was met in this case. <br />Furthermore, even if it were the case that there is no feasible alternative <br />connection between the proposed development and River Road, other than <br />Oakleigh Lane, that situation would justify an exemption only to EC 9.6820(3), <br />but not to EC 9.6820(1) and (4). EC 9.6820(3) prohibits cul-de-sacs that would <br />exceed a certain length, when that's avoidable; but that isn t the situation <br />with Oakleigh Lane. However, EC 9.6820(1) and (4) are clearly meant as <br />requirements that do apply to a long, dead-end street, such as Oakleigh Lane, <br />that exceeds the normal length limit. <br />EC 9.6820(4) makes absolutely clear that the City Council meant to require <br />improvements to long cul-de-sacs in order to "provide safe circulation for <br />pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency vehicles." <br />The Hearings Official erroneously exempted the application from providing a <br />public accessway that meets the code's standards in order to "provide safe <br />circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency vehicles." <br />SUBASSIGNMENI' OF ERROR 2.B <br />The Decision erred by finding the application met the following criterion: <br />(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related <br />facilities, as needed among buildings and related uses on the <br />development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential <br />areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, <br />and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to <br />demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. <br />"Nearby" means uses within 1/4 mile that can reasonably be <br />expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that <br />can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />The Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane would meet, or was <br />exempt from, the applicable standards established for safe use by pedestrian <br />and bicyclists using Oakleigh Lane to and from nearby residential areas, <br />transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks <br />on River Road and beyond. <br />EC 9.8320(5)(b) requires the applicant to demonstrate a safe and adequate <br />transportation system "to adjacent and nearby" areas. As noted elsewhere in <br />the Hearings Official decision, a 45 foot right of way was required and, "the <br />public interest in safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel and emergency <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 7 November 22, 2013 <br />PC Agenda - Page 13 <br />