Attachment A <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 10. B: the Hearings Official erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane <br />was.not an "access lane." <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 10. C: The Hearings Official used erroneous data for traffic counts <br />in on or more places..." <br />D. Sub-assignment of Error.10.D: The Hearings Official erroneously allowed the <br />impermissible new and non-responsive evidence submitted by the applicant's <br />representatives on October 16, 2013, without providing an opportunity for opponents to <br />respond, despite the timely, written request by Paul Conte. <br />As addressed previously; the PC finds that the constitutional findings included in the staff report and <br />PW referral comments (Pages 2-4 of Exhibit PH-30) were adopted to justify exaction from the applicant <br />for that a portion of the subject property abutting the street. Those findings do not demonstrate that <br />Oakleigh Lane will be unsafe ~ ^'^pr, dtayP'^^^d new. In fact other evidence in the record specifically <br />supports a conclusion that the street will be safe with .the added findings and <br />condition of approval to require a minimum 14' paving width within the existing right-of-way of <br />Oakleigh_ Lane (as discussed under the Third Assignment of Error above), even with the anticipated <br />increase_ in traffic generated from the proposed PUD.:AceerdinglY,the PE finds €hat StFeet <br />site,. 9F en any <br />The PC affirms the HO's decision that Oakleigh Lane is a low-volume residential street under existing <br />and proposed conditions, as the street has not yet been designed and built to urban City standards and <br />the projected ADT is within the 250 to 750 range. The conditions imposed by the HO for right-of-way <br />dedication and irrevocable petition from the developer will ensure that the PUD contributes its <br />proportional share of the future local improvement. The PC finds the traffic generation to be consistent ; <br />with the proposed residential use, which is within the permissible density range. As such, the PC agrees <br />with the HO that the traffic generated by the development is not "significant" within the context of EC <br />9.8320(12). <br />The PC finds that the various trip generation estimates provided in the record do not change the . <br />determination that Oakleigh Lane is a low-volume residential street. The PC finds that the HO did not <br />err in his conclusions that relied on ADT estimates, and the relevance of this alleged error is unclear in <br />the appeal statement as it does not identify any related approval criteria to which the argument <br />applies. The HO findings on pages 18-29 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of <br />compliance under the approval criterion appealed under this assignment of error. <br />The PC finds that the HO was correct in allowing the applicant's October 16, 2013 submittals into the <br />record, asthey were responsive to evidence and argument submitted up.to October 9, 2013, as <br />explained in the HO's decision. The PC also affirms the HO's Order Denying Reopening the Evidentiary <br />Record. The HO findings on pages 3-4 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of the <br />open record appealed under this assignment.of error. <br />• <br />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 14 <br />PC Agenda - Page 15 <br />110 <br />