to be used as PUD approval criteria. Unlike the policies the case cited by the appellant (Rothman v. <br />City of Eugene), where the policies actually sought to discourage the exact planning action that was <br />being proposed, the text and context of these policies do not appear to require any additional <br />consideration for the proposed PUD. Even though consideration of the policies is not required, the PC <br />finds that approval of the PUD is nonetheless consistent with those policies based on the proportional <br />requirements made for right-of-way dedication, future street and public accessway improvements, and <br />further, through the City's System Development Charges (SDC's) which are collected at the time of <br />development. <br />Second Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the-application met EC 9.8320 5 <br />"The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with the <br />following..." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 2.A: the Decision erred by finding the application met the <br />following criterion: <br />EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public <br />Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in (11) below). <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 2.B: the Decision erred by finding the application met the <br />following criterion: <br />Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed <br />among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent <br />and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office <br />parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate <br />consistency with constitutional requirements. "Nearby" means uses within X mile <br />that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles <br />that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 2.C: the Decision erred by finding the application met the <br />following criterion: <br />The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through 9.6880 <br />where applicable. <br />The HO completed a detailed analysis of this issue on page 24 of his decision. The PC finds that the HO <br />was correct in his application of EC 9.8320(5), as being limited in scope to compliance with the <br />following: a) that EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 can be met, b) that pedestrian, bicycle and transit <br />circulation can be achieved, and c) that if necessary a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been done and <br />mitigation provided. To the extent the HO's decision concludes that EC 9.8320(5)(a) relates only to the <br />dedication of land, the PC disagrees. EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 establish standards for dedication, <br />design and location of public ways, generally. EC 9.6800. That said, the PC agrees that neither EC <br />9.8320(5)(a) nor EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 require that an existing street must meet certain standards <br />in order to serve a proposed development. EC 9.6870 only, provides the required paving widths for <br />certain. types of streets when and if those streets are ever fully improved to City standards. <br />Final order: oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD Page 3 <br />8 <br />