17 <br />1 Moreover, the intervenor is mistaken in assuming that EC 9.8320(6) <br />2 required the City to evaluate the "configuration of Oakleigh Lane" along its <br />3 entire length. This provision specifically requires the City to evaluate whether <br />4 the PUD is an impediment to emergency response, and not whether all off-site <br />5 portions of the street conform to current City standards. In a similar vein, the <br />6 applicant urges that the PUD must be denied because off-site parking may <br />7 obstruct emergency vehicles. Brief, p. 34. However, the intervenor cites to no <br />8 evidence that on-street parking is impeding emergency vehicle access. <br />9 Moreover, off-site parking does not demonstrate that the PUD is an impediment <br />10 to emergency response. Accordingly, the intervenor's fifth subassignment <br />11 should be denied. <br />12 IF. EC 9.8320(11)(b) did not require the improvement of Oakleigh <br />13 Lane before final PUD approval. <br />14 The intervenor contends under his final subassignment of error that the <br />15 City erred by requiring an irrevocable petition for public improvements instead <br />16 of requiring immediate improvement of Oakleigh Lane. Brief, p. 37. However, <br />17 the intervenor cites to no code requirement that public improvements be <br />18 immediately constructed.6 As is set forth above, the City's Planned Unit <br />19 Development standards expressly allow deferral of public improvements <br />20 beyond Final Plan approval where a petition for public improvements has been <br />6 The intervenor also asserts that the right-of-way_ dedication did not conform to <br />the paving standards at EC 9.6505(3)(b). Brief, p. 36. However, this provision <br />does not impose standards on the dedication of public rights-of-way. <br />