Attachment B <br />2017 Remand Appeal Issues - Oakleigh Co-housing (PDT 13-1) <br />The Decision erred by finding that the application met EC 9.8320(1) "The PUD is consistent with <br />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: Pedestrian Environment <br />(Metro Plan Policy F.26) <br />Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is designed <br />to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking (Metro Plan 111-F-9) <br />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 system. (Metro Plar <br />111-F-13) <br />2. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(5) "The PUD provides safe and adequate <br />transportation systems through compliance with the following..." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 2.A: the Decision erred by finding the application met the following criterion: <br />EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways (not subject to <br />modifications set forth in (11) below). <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 2.B: the Decision erred by finding the application met the following criterion: <br />Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed among buildings and <br />related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit <br />stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes <br />findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. "Nearby" means uses within Y4 <br />mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can <br />reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 2.C: the Decision erred by finding the application met the following criterion: <br />The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through 9.6880 where applicable. <br />3. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(6) "The PUD will not be a significant risk to <br />public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, storm water and flood <br />hazard, or an impediment to emergency response." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 3.A: the Decision erroneously found that the PUD would not be a significant <br />risk to public safety. <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 3.B: the Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own analysis that <br />Oakleigh Lane would be an impediment to emergency response unless the right-of-way was widened <br />and the road improved. <br />4. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(11)(b) "The PUD complies with all of the <br />following... EC 9.6505 Improvement-Specifications (3)(b) Streets and Alleys, (4) Sidewalks, and (5) Bicycle <br />Paths and Accessways <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 4.A: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is not only <br />adjacent to, but also serves as the only vehicular access to and from the development site, would be <br />paved to the specifications in EC 9.6870 (or exempt). <br />Page 10 <br />