Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in (11) below). <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 2.B: the Decision erred by finding the application met the <br />following criterion: <br />Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed <br />among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent <br />and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office <br />parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate <br />consistency with constitutional requirements. "Nearby" means uses within % mile <br />that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles <br />that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 2.C. the Decision erred by finding the application met the <br />following criterion: <br />The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through 9.6880 <br />where applicable. <br />The HO completed a detailed analysis of this issue on page 24 of his decision. The PC finds that the HO <br />was correct in his application of EC 9.8320(5), as being limited in scope to compliance with the <br />following: a) that EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 can be met, b) that pedestrian, bicycle and transit <br />circulation can be achieved, and c) that if necessary a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been done and <br />mitigation provided. To the extent the HO's decision concludes that EC 9.8320(5)(a) relates only to the <br />dedication of land, the PC disagrees. EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 establish standards for dedication, <br />design and location of public ways, generally. EC 9.6800. That said, the PC agrees that neither EC <br />9.8320(5)(a) nor EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 require that an existing street must meet certain standards <br />in order to serve a proposed development. EC 9.6870 only provides the required paving widths for <br />certain types of streets when and if those streets are ever fully improved to City standards. However, <br />EC 9.8320(6) does provide a means of addressing the safety of Oakleigh Lane for purposes of <br />emergency response vehicles. See discussion under the Third Assignment of Error below. <br />With regard to EC 9.6800 through 9.6875, the PC finds that the HO was correct in granting exceptions <br />to the street connectivity standards and cul-de-sac length standards. The PC concludes that the street <br />connectivity exception at EC 9.6815(2)(8)(1) is met by the applicant's alternative street connection <br />study, along with their narrative that addresses the intent statements at EC 9.6815(1). The PC finds <br />that the alternative street connection study is not required to evaluate full build-out potential of the <br />entire area. The PC also finds that no right-of-way is being exacted of Tax Lot 200. <br />The PC concludes that the HO did not err by granting an exception to the 400-foot maximum cul-de-sac <br />length. The PC finds that there is existing development to the south and natural resources to the east <br />that warrant an exception to the cul-de-sac length, pursuant to EC 9.6820(5). The PC affirms that the <br />cul-de-sac standards at EC 9.6820(1) and EC 9.6820(4) are met because the HO conditioned approval <br />upon right-of-way dedication for a future hammerhead turnaround and an access way beyond the <br />turnaround. To the extent that there is any conflict between the street connectivity exception and the <br />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 4 <br />