SUBASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 3.13 <br />The Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own analysis that <br />Oakleigh Lane would be an impediment to emergency response unless the <br />right-of-way was widened and the road improved. Instead he relied entirely <br />on staff findings. <br />The Hearings Official and the staff finding both failed to consider and <br />properly apply the substantial evidence provide by the Public Works <br />Department (PWD) analysis. (See the discussion under Subassignment of <br />Error 10.A, which is incorporated here by reference.) <br />See Conte 10/9 page 16. <br />Furthermore, in his interpretation of the requirements of EC 9.8320(6), the <br />Hearings Official failed to consider the context clearly showing Council's <br />intent, specifically the provisions of EC 9.6820(4) that require public <br />accessways to provide safe circulation for emergency vehicles for a cul-de-sac <br />longer than 150' in length. The statements related to EC 9.6820 under <br />Subassignment of Error 2.A are incorporated here by reference. <br />FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />The Decision erred by finding the application met the following approval <br />criterion: <br />EC 9.8320(11) The PUD complies with all of the following: <br />(b) EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards. <br />EC 9.6505 Improvements-Specifications <br />EC 9.6505(3)(b) Streets and Alleys <br />EC 9.6505(4) Sidewalks <br />EC 9.6505(5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways. <br />SUBASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 4.A <br />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 <br />development site, would be paved to the specifications in EC 9.6870 (or <br />exempt). <br />EC 9.6505(3)(b) requires: <br />The developer shall pave streets and alleys adjacent to the development <br />site to the width specified in EC 9.6870 Street Width, unless such streets <br />and alleys are already paved to that width, provided the City makes <br />findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. All <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 10 November 22, 2013 <br />