findings (and therefore the-Hearings_Official's decision) rely on staff findings for EC 9.8320(5)(b) <br />and (11)(b). <br />When findings for one criterion rely on findings for a separate criterion, the decision must <br />identify the specific findings for the referenced criterion that are being relied upon and must <br />explain how those findings ensure consistency with the subject criterion. In this instance, neither <br />the Hearings Official nor the staff provided the required information for a sufficient finding. <br />The Hearings Official specifically erred in not explaining how the'current configuration.of <br />Oakleigh Lane would not be an impediment to emergency response when the PWD's analysis <br />explicitly found that "emergency response and access will be at risk" unless Oakleigh Lane's right- <br />of-way was widened and the road improved. Nothing in the staff findings for EC 9.8320(5)(b) and <br />(11)(b) could reasonably be construed as adequately addressing this.issue. <br />As explained above, staff cites to a PWD statement that "the existing paved surface of Oakleigh <br />Lane will continue to adequately provide for emergency vehicles and delivery services, <br />provided the paved surface is not blocked by parked vehicles." But the same statement <br />acknowledges that nothing ensures the paved surface is not blocked by parked vehicles. Thus, t_he <br />PWD statement does not provide an adequate finding. There is also no explanation in the <br />referenced findings of how such the conclusory statement related to EC 9.8320(5)(b) squares <br />with the more extensive analysis provided in the PWD justification of the exactions. <br />Furthermore, in interpreting the requirements of EC 9.8320(6), both the Hearings Official and <br />staff failed to consider the context that clearly shows Council's intent, specifically the provisions <br />of EC 9.6820(4) that require public accessways to provide safe circulation for emergency vehicles <br />fora cul-de-sac longer than 150' in length. (The statements related to EC 9.6820(4), above, are <br />incorporated here by reference.) <br />In addition, the errors cited under Subassignments of Error 2.A, 2.13, 4.A, 4.13 and 4.C in the Appeal <br />Statement, as they relate to the safety of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, demonstrate that the <br />PUD would pose significant risk to public safety unless Oakleigh Lane is widened and improved. <br />Under EC 9.8320(11) <br />For EC 9.6505(3)(b) Streets and A[leys, (4) Sidewalks, and (5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways, the <br />Hearings Official relied on his findings for EC 9.8320(5), but failed to provide the required specific <br />explanation for how those findings demonstrate compliance with EC 9.6505(3)(b). The discussion <br />under EC 9.8320(5), above, demonstrates that the Decision is erroneous in this reliance. <br />As discussed above, in order for the City to find that approval of the proposed POD would be <br />consistent with EC 9.8320(5) and other traffic-related criteria, Oakleigh Lane must be widened <br />and improved. While the City may not be able to require the applicant to pay for improvements <br />to the entire length of Oakleigh Lane, that doesn't negate the need for improving the entire road <br />so that. it will be safe and adequate. <br />Under EC 9.8320(12) <br />EC 9.8320(12) requires that "[t]he proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, <br />including impacts such as traffic <br />Conte Testimony - December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 <br />Page 15 <br />-271 <br />