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)(g)(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 />standards for maximum cul-de-sac length, the PC resolves this conflict in favor of granting the <br />exception. <br />The PC finds that the constitutional findings in the Public Works referral comments are limited to <br />iu tification fora proportional right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the subject property that <br />w uld accommodate future public street improvements. The constitutional -findings address a future <br />need for street improvements abutting the property, rather than an immediate need based on safety <br />is ues or otherwise associated with the proposed PUD. ^+^^d^d only to „pn„r++h^ .;lght „f_,. ay <br />. The PC concludes that no additional right-of- • <br />way dedication or street improvements are necessary to meet the approval criteria. Based on these <br />findings, the pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation requirements of EC 9.8320(5)(b) are met. <br />With regard to TIA requirements, the PC finds that the HO did not err in his conclusion that none of the <br />TIA applicability provisions required.a TIA. Based on the previous findings that the Public Works referral <br />comments are limited in scope, the PC concludes that there is nothing in the record to require a TIA. <br />Based on these findings, PC finds that the HO was correct in determining compliance with EC <br />9.8320(5). The HO findings on page 18-29 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence <br />of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. To provide <br />clarity on the basis for the cul-de-sac length exception, the PC modifies the HO decision to include <br />the additional findings provided above. <br />Third Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(6) <br />"The PUD will not be a signcant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to <br />soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater and flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency <br />response. <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 3.A: the Decision erroneously found that the PUD would not be a <br />significant risk to public safety. <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 3.8: the Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD-s own • <br />{00109077;11 <br />DRAFT Final Order <br />Page 4 <br />14' <br />