26 <br />elided the question entirely - simply agreeing with Respondents that the City <br />got it right. LUBA's Opinion fails to engage with the question that was raised <br />below and LUBA erred in its understanding of the question and, accordingly, <br />erred in its interpretation of the City code. <br />(i) EC 9.8320(5). <br />The opening portion of 9.8320(5) is a simple and straightforward <br />statement that an application for a PUD must provide "safe and adequate <br />transportation systems." LUBA affirmed the City's conclusion that the opening <br />provision, standing alone, was not an independent criterion and, instead, <br />compliance with EC 9.8320(5)(a), (b) and (c) suffices to comply with the <br />provision.8 In addition, LUBA held that EC 9.8320(b) required only that the <br />City "consider off-site circulation and connectivity for pedestrians and bicycles <br />along the entirety of Oakleigh Lane," but never explained the content of that <br />8 As LUBA concluded: <br />"The planning commission found that compliance with EC <br />9.8320(5) is demonstrated by compliance with Subsections (a), (b), <br />and (c) and that EC 9.8320(5) does not contain an independent <br />requirement to determine whether a PUD provides `a safe and <br />adequate transportation system' beyond determining compliance <br />with (a), (b), and (c)." ER p 30 - 31. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />