7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (01)

37 is developed and not left to the indefinite future. Ibid. 2 The decision must be remanded for the City to require the developer to 3 provide adequate right-of-way, sidewalks and other improvements on Oakleigh 4 Lane adjacent to the development site before the PUD is in use. 5 The City's argument for ignoring the PWD analysis 6 The City's findings for EC 9.8320(5)(b), (6) and (11)(b) (as well as for 7 EC 9.8320(12) and EC 9.8320(13), discussed under the Second and Third 8 Assignments of Error infra) rely on an erroneous assertion that PWD's findings 9 cited supra are irrelevant to the approval criteria addressed in this appeal. 10 For example, the Decision found for EC 9.8320(5)(b): 11 "The [E]PC finds that the constitutional findings in the Public Works 12 [Department] referral comments are limited to justification for a 13 proportional right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the subject 14 property that would accommodate future public street improvements. The 15 constitutional findings address a future need for street improvements 16 abutting the property, rather than any immediate need, based on safety 17 issues or otherwise, associated with the proposed PUD. The PC concludes 18 that no additional right-of-way dedication or street improvements are 19 necessary to meet the approval criteria. Based on these findings, the 20 pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation requirements of 21 EC9.8320(5)(b)are met." (Rec 9) 22 The Decision found similarly for EC 9.8320(6): 23 "Based on the previous determination under the second assignment of error 24 about the limited scope of the PW[D] constitutional findings for right-of- 25 way exaction, the PC finds no basis in the record to require additional right- 26 of-way dedication or street improvements. The PC concludes that the HO's 27 conditions for right-of-way dedications and irrevocable petitions address a