Attachment D <br />2. 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 />B. Sub-assignment of Error 2.B: 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 '4 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 />following criterion: <br />The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through 9.6880 <br />where applicable. <br />With regard to approval criterion EC 9.8320(5), the HO responded as follows: <br />The opponents have raised numerous "safety" concerns and arguments that go well beyond the <br />fundamental requirement of EC 9.8320(5). The very structure of EC 9.8320(5) does not require an <br />applicant to prove that a proposed development will be safe from any and all asserted and or <br />imagined traffic safety threats. The language of EC 9.8320(5) states: "[t]he PUD provides safe and <br />adequate transportation systems through compliance with the following:" The underlined section <br />demonstrates that the provision is limited by its own words to a requirement showing three <br />things: a) that EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 can be met, b) that pedestrian, bicycle and transit <br />circulation can be achieved, and c) that if necessary a Traffic Impact Analysis has been done and <br />mitigation provided. In other words, the adopted provisions of EC 9.8320(5) assume that if those <br />three criteria can be met, a "safe and adequate transportation system" will result. (HO Decision, <br />Page 24) <br />The appellant challenges the assumption of "compliance with the following" because the PUD required <br />multiple exemptions from street standards; the appellant further asserts that those exemptions were <br />not supported (see pages 4-9 of the Appeal Statement). Here, the PC should initially determine <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 2 <br />