TronsP/an Transportation System Improvements (TSP) Pedestrian Policy #1: <br />Pedestrian Environment (Metro Plan Polity 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 III-F-9) <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 1.8: 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 Ili-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. City <br />of Eugene), where the policies actually sought to discourage the exact planning action that was being <br />proposed, the text and context of these policies do not appear to require any additional consideration <br />for the proposed PUD. Even though consideration of the policies is not required, the PC finds that <br />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 />ways (not subject to modifications set forth in (11) below). <br />8. Sub-assignment of Error 2.8: the Decision erred by finding the application met the <br />following criterion: <br />Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed <br />among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent <br />and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office <br />parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate <br />consistency with constitutional requirements. "Nearby" means uses within X mile <br />that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles <br />that can 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 <br />2017 Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 4 <br />