response will be at risk" if that minimum right of way is not dedicated. If the <br />dedication is required to adequately protect the public interest on site, it <br />should also be required off-site, otherwise, the PUD is imposing unsafe risks <br />in areas outside of the development. <br />The Hearings Official failed to consider and properly apply the substantial <br />evidence provide by the Public Works Department (PWD) analysis. (See the <br />discussion under Subassignment of Error 10.A, which is incorporated here by <br />reference.) <br />In particular, the Hearings Official's findings are inconsistent with the PWD <br />analysis found in the Staff Report on page 13. <br />See Conte 10/9 pages 14 to 16. <br />Furthermore, in his interpretation of the requirements of EC 9.8320(5)(b), the <br />Hearings Official failed to consider the context that clearly shows Council's <br />intent, specifically the provisions of EC 9.6820(4) that require public <br />accessways to provide safe circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and <br />emergency vehicles for a cul-de-sac longer than 150' in length. The statements <br />related to EC 9.6820 under Subassignment of Error 2.A are incorporated here <br />by reference. <br />SUBASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 2.C <br />The Decision erred by finding the application met the following criterion: <br />(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC <br />9.8650 through 9.8680 where applicable. <br />The Decision erroneously found that no Traffic Impact Analysis was required <br />for the application. The TIA is required under the following code provision: <br />EC 9.8670 Applicability <br />(2) The increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute <br />to traffic problems in the area based on current accident rates, traffic <br />volumes or speeds that warrant action under the city's traffic calming <br />program, and identified locations where pedestrian and/or bicyclist <br />safety is a concern by the city that is documented. (Emphasis added) <br />The Hearings Official failed to consider and properly apply the substantial <br />evidence provide by the Public Works Department (PWD) analysis. (See the <br />discussion under Subassignment of Error 10.A, which is incorporated here by <br />reference.) <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 8 November 22, 2013 <br />