V <br />1 <br />TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />1. Standing .........................................................................................................1 <br />II. Statement of the Case ..................................................................................1 <br />A. Nature of Decision and Relief Sought 1 <br />B. Summary of Arguments 1 <br />C. Summary of Material Facts 2 <br />D. Jurisdiction 4 <br />Standard of Review 4 <br />RESPONSE TO FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 4 <br />The City Did Not Err in Concluding that the Proposed PUD Would <br />Provide a Safe and Adequate Transportation System 4 <br />RESPONSE TO SECOND ASSIGMENT OF ERROR ...............................18 <br />The City Properly Found that the PUD. Would Have Minimal Off-Site <br />Impacts With Regard to Traffic 18 <br />RESPONSE TO THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 22 <br />The City Did Not Err in Concluding That Traffic from the PUD Would <br />Be Reasonably Compatible and Harmonious with Adjacent and Nearby <br />Land Uses 22 <br />CONCLUSION 23 <br />