10 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />PUD requirements expressly allow applicants to complete public improvements <br />after Final PUD approval, provided that "[a] petition for public improvements <br />and for the assessment of the real property for the improvements has been <br />signed by the property owner, and the petition has been accepted by the city <br />engineer." EC 9.8360(5)(b). In this case, public works staff determined that <br />Oakleigh would continue to function acceptably with the proposed development <br />and that it was "appropriate to defer public improvements via an irrevocable <br />petition." Rec. 1268-69. The City properly conditioned tentative approval on <br />the submission of just such an "Irrevocable Petition for public improvements." <br />Rec. 409. ER 75. Accordingly, the intervenor identifies no error under his <br />second subassignment and the same should be denied. <br />1C. EC 9.8320(5)(b) does not require the applicant to improve all of <br />Oakleigh Lane. <br />The intervenor contends under his third subassignment of error that City <br />failed to "actually evaluate whether Oakleigh Lane would provide a `safe and <br />adequate' pedestrian and bicycle route to River Road." Brief, p. 23. However, <br />the relevant inquiry under EC 9.8320(5)(b) is actually whether the proposed <br />PUD provides adequate on-site circulation, and off-site circulation where the <br />City can demonstrate consistency with applicable constitutional requirements. <br />EC 9.8320(5)(b) states: <br />"(5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems <br />through compliance with the following: <br />