ER-29 <br />1 <br />All other portions of Neighbors' second and third assignments of error <br />2 are denied. <br />3 Conte's second and third assignments of error are denied. <br />4 CONTE'S FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORINEIGHBORS' FOURTH <br />5 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />6 EC 9.8320(5) requires the city to find that "[t]he PUD provides safe and <br />7 adequate transportation systems through compliance with the following: <br />8 "(h) ~ EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets;-Alleys, <br />9 and Other Public Ways (not subject to modifications set <br />10 forth in subsection (11) below). <br />11 "(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related <br />12 facilities, as needed among buildings and related uses on the <br />13 development site,. as well as . to adjacent and nearby <br />14 residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity <br />15 centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city <br />16 makes findings to demonstrate consistency with <br />17 constitutional requirements. `Nearby' means uses within <br />18 1/4 mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by <br />19 pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be <br />20 expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />21 "(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC <br />22 9.8650 through 9.8680 where applicable." <br />23 As relevant here, EC 9.8320(6) requires the city to find that "[t]he PUD will <br />24 not be a significant risk to public health and safety * * or an impediment to <br />25 emergency response." Conte's first assignment of error and Neighbors' fourth <br />26 assignment of error challenge the city's conclusion that the PUD meets EC <br />27 9.8320(5) and (6). <br />28 A. Motion to Strike <br />29 The city moves to strike Exhibit A to Conte's brief, arguing that Exhibit <br />30 A is not included in the record. We agree that Exhibit A is not included in the <br />Page 29 <br />000078 <br />