SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />The Decision erred by finding the application met the following approval <br />criterion: <br />EC 9.8320(5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation <br />systems through compliance with the following: <br />(a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and <br />Other Public Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in <br />subsection (11) below). <br />(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related <br />facilities, as needed among buildings and related uses on the <br />development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential <br />areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, <br />and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to <br />demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. <br />"Nearby" means uses within 1/4 mile that can reasonably be <br />expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that <br />can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC <br />9.8650 through 9.8680 where applicable. <br />The Hearings Official erred in finding that the proposed PUD complied with <br />EC 9.8320(5) and would provide a "safe and adequate transportation system." <br />The proposed PUD required multiple exemptions from street standards <br />under EC 9.6815(2)(g). However, those exemptions were based on a local <br />street connection study that considered only partial buildout of the impacted <br />area. For example, the street connection study assumed no infill and only <br />partial buildout of tax lot 200 to the north with flag lots. The local street <br />connection study should have been required to assume full build out of the <br />surrounding area. <br />In addition, the Hearings Official did not explain how the exception meets <br />EC 9.6815(1)(a) regarding providing a "safe" street design, as well as (e) <br />requiring the street system to "encourage" walking and bicycling, when the <br />remainder of Oakleigh Lane is inadequate to accommodate the new traffic. <br />The following subassignments of error individually and in combination <br />resulted in the erroneous finding that the PUD would provide safe and <br />adequate transportation systems. <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 4 November 22, 2013 <br />