In particular, the PWD analysis found in the Staff Report on page 13 <br />documented City concerns over pedestrian safety on Oakleigh Lane. <br />See Conte 10/9 page 16 and Conte 10/16 pages 2 to 3. <br />Furthermore, in his interpretation of the requirements of EC 9.8320(5)(c), 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 pedestrians and bicyclists for a cul- <br />de-sac 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 />THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />The Decision erred by finding the application met the following approval <br />criterion: <br />EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health <br />and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope <br />failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to <br />emergency response. <br />SUBASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 3.A <br />The Decision erroneously found that the PUD would not be a significant risk <br />to public safety. <br />The Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own analysis that <br />"emergency response and access will be at risk" unless Oakleigh Lane's right- <br />of-way was widened and the road improved. Instead he relied entirely on <br />staff findings. <br />In addition, the errors cited under Subassignments of Error 2.A, 2.13, 4.A, 4.13 <br />and 4.C, as they relate to the safety of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, <br />demonstrate that the PUD would pose significant risk to public safety unless <br />Oakleigh Lane is widened and improved. The relevant arguments in <br />Subassignments of Error 2.A, 2.13, 4.A, 4.13 and 4.C are included here by <br />reference. <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 />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 9 November 22, 2013 <br />