To further support the PC's conclusion, the PC incorporates the City Attorney's memorandum from <br />Anne Davies dated December 11, 2013, which is included as Attachment B. The HO's decision is also <br />adopted by reference and included as Attachment C. <br />As noted above, the appeal is comprised of ten assignments of error. Each assignment of error is set <br />forth below, followed by the PC's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each one. <br />First Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding that the application met EC 9.8320(1) <br />"The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 1.A: the Decision failed to address the following policy at all. <br />TransPlan Transportation System Improvements (TSP) Pedestrian Policy #1: <br />Pedestrian Environment (Metro Plan Policy F.26) <br />Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land <br />uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking <br />(Metro Plan 1114-9) <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 1.B: the Decision failed to address the following policy at all. <br />TransPlan Finance Policy #4: New Development (Metro Plan Policy F.36) <br />Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on the transportation <br />system. (Metro Plan Ill-F-13) <br />The appellant asserts that the HO failed to consider these policies, and to include adequate conditions <br />of approval for sufficient right-of-way, sidewalks, and other improvements to ensure consistency. The <br />PC finds that the HO did not explicitly address Policies F.26 and F.36 of the Metro Plan, but agrees with <br />the applicant's reasoning that these policies are not mandatory approval criteria for the application. <br />The policies provide broad direction to the local government in legislative matters but are not intended <br />to be used as PUD approval criteria. Unlike the policies the case cited by the appellant (Bothman 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 />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 3 <br />