"OAR 660-012-0045(3) requires local government to adopt land use <br />regulations to provide for a pedestrian environment that us well <br />integrated with adjacent land use and designed to enhance the safety, <br />comfort, and convenience of walking; a continuous pedestrian network <br />with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points; and <br />sidewalks along urban arterial and collector roadways, except freeways." <br />(Emphasis added) <br />Metro Plan policy F.26 is a planning requirement for the City to "Provide f or a <br />pedestrian environment" in its land use regulations, and not a criteria for an <br />individual development permit. The Hearings Official's decision cannot be <br />overturned for not addressing an inapplicable policy. <br />Likewise, Metro Plan policy F.36 is another planning requirement, and not <br />an approval criteria. It states: <br />"Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on the <br />transportation system." <br />The preceding Metro Plan findings address various sources of revenue and <br />alternatives for increasing transportation costs. New development is identified <br />as a potential source of revenue under finding 48, which states: <br />"Currently, systems development charge (SDC) methodologies charge <br />new development only for the city's portion of the arterial-collector <br />system, metropolitan area state and county facilities are excluded from the <br />calculation of SDC raters; and assessments only partially fund projects <br />that are improving existing facilities to urban standards." <br />It is clear from this context that policy F.36 is intended to provide financial <br />planning guidance to the jurisdictions concerning the use of SDC's it is not an <br />approval criteria for individual development permits. <br />Moreover, even if the Hearings Official failed to cite to these policies, he <br />addressed the substance of the arguments that the appellant advances in his <br />decision. The appellant argues that Oakleigh Lane has to be widened to safely <br />accommodate pedestrians, and that this widening would impose an additional <br />burden on adjoining property. However, the only dedication of additional street <br />width is on the subject property itself. No widening of the street is necessary to <br />safely accommodate pedestrians, because as the Hearings Official noted the <br />increase in traffic on Oakleigh Lane will actually improve pedestrian safety by <br />reducing travel speeds.' HO Decision, p. 27. Likewise, the Hearings Official also <br />found that adjoining neighbors would not be burdened by the street widening, <br />' In fact, as Hearings Official notes, the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan <br />provides that the queuing effect on local streets "has been found to be an <br />effective and safe method to reduce speeds and non-local traffic." ACSP, <br />Appendix H, p. 36. <br />2 <br />236 <br />