setback standards provides no basis to overturn the decision of the Hearings <br />Official. <br />10. The Appellant Fails to Identify Any Error in the Hearings Official's <br />Findings With Regard to Substantial Evidence. <br />Finally, the appellant purports to challenge the substantial evidence relied <br />upon by the Hearings Official in rendering its decision of approval. However, in <br />reality the appellant is seeking to substitute its preferred evidence and judgment <br />for that of the Hearings Official. The appellant's dissatisfaction with the <br />Hearings Official's selection of evidence or decision regarding how to weigh that <br />evidence provides no basis to overturn the Hearings Official's decision, and the <br />same should be upheld. See EC 9.7680 (noting that reversal must be based on <br />findings "as to how the hearings official... failed to properly evaluate the <br />application or make a decision consistent with applicable criteria.") <br />A. Constitutional Exaction Findings <br />As noted above, the appellant makes a concerted effort to twist staff's and <br />Public Work's findings in support of the dedication of additional right-of-way <br />for Oakleigh Lane to argue that the street must be widened and improved along <br />its entire length to "ensure the safe, convenient and/ or comfortable <br />accommodation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on Oakleigh Lane." <br />However, the appellant is overreaching. <br />While City staff did provide the required findings to satisfy constitutional <br />requirements to support an exaction of the OMC property (see HO Decision, p. 21- <br />23), City staff did not indicate the continued safety or accessibility of Oakleigh <br />Lane was dependent upon the improvement of this area, or the widening of <br />other portions of the street. On the contrary, as noted by City staff: <br />"Public Works staff states that the existing paved surface provides safe <br />passage for two way vehicular traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and <br />emergency vehicles. As'such, Public Works staff indicates that there is <br />nothing to suggest that impacts of the proposed development will result <br />in unsafe conditions in Oakleigh Lane. Public Works staff confirms that it <br />is appropriate to defer public improvements via an irrevocable petition." <br />HO Decision, p. 26. <br />It's clear that the appellant disagrees with these findings. However, it failed to <br />provide evidence to establish that the modest increase in traffic on Oakleigh Lane <br />would create capacity or safety issues. Accordingly, the appellant's attempt to <br />twist the staff's Constitutional Exaction findings into evidence of a deficiency in <br />Oakleigh Lane fails, and provides no basis to overturn the Hearings Official's <br />decision. <br />B. Access Lane <br />The appellant urges under its subsection 1013, that the Hearings Official <br />erroneously concluded that Oakleigh Lane is not an "access lane." <br />12 <br />246 <br />