Attachment D <br />If the PC determines that the HO erred by not requiring a TIA, alternatives include finding that the <br />approval criteria have not been met, or possibly modifying the decision to require a TIA prior to final <br />PUD approval. <br />3. Third Assignment o Error: The Decision erred b finding the application met EC 9.8320(6 <br />"'The_PUD will not be a sianificant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to <br />soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater and flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency <br />response. <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 3.A: the Decision erroneously found that the PUD would not be a <br />significant risk to public safety. <br />8. Sub-assignment of Error 3.8: the Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own <br />analysis that Oakleigh Cane would be an impediment to emergency response unless the <br />right-of-way was widened and the road improved. <br />The appellant argues that if the portion of Oakleigh Lane adjacent to the development must be <br />widened and improved to ensure the safe, convenient and/or comfortable accommodation of <br />vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on Oakleigh Lane after the development is built, then the long <br />stretch of Oakleigh Lane between River Road and the development site would also have to widened <br />and improved in a corresponding manner. The appellant incorporates the arguments in Appeal Issues <br />2, 4, and 10 to further assert that the HO erred in finding that the PUD would not be a significant risk to <br />public health and safety, or an impediment to emergency response. <br />The HO responded to EC 9.8320(6) by adopting the staff findings (HO Decision, Pages 29 and 30). The <br />staff findings specific to emergency response were primarily focused on the turnaround within the <br />development site, to serve the PUD, resulting in the condition for a temporary easement. The staff <br />findings noted that the permanent turnaround is anticipated at the end of Oakleigh Lane, when <br />properties to the north further develop. The appellant further asserts that the public accessway <br />requirements. for cul-de-sacs at EC 9.6820(4) are not met, by incorporating Appeal Issue 2, and relates <br />this argument to the above approval criterion' regarding safe circulation. <br />If the PC disagrees with the HO, additional requirements could be considered such as wider right-of- <br />way and improvements necessary to meet the approval criteria, and if so, whether it is feasible and <br />legally justified to establish these requirements as conditions of approval. For example, the PC could <br />require the applicant to build the hammerhead turnaround at the end of Oakleigh Lane prior to <br />occupancy; to improve Oakleigh Lane with paving and/or sidewalks to address pedestrian safety; <br />and/or require.immediate improvement of the dedicated public accessway along the north property <br />line. Alternatively, the PC could make findings to explain how the approval criteria have not been met, <br />for example, if it is determined that additional right-of-way is necessary but not feasible to require <br />under the approval criteria. <br />4. <br />Summary of Appeal Issues <br />Page 5 <br />217 <br />