right-of-way because, as the only means of vehicular access to and from the PUD, Oakleigh <br />Lane is an essential element of the transportation system that connects the PUD to the larger <br />street network. <br />As a matter of law, the Planning Commission's prior interpretation of EC 9.8320(5) and <br />EC 9.8320(5)(a) ignores the text's explicit requirement for a "safe and adequate transportation <br />system" and would allow absurd results. According to this interpretation, Oakleigh Lane could <br />be practically impassable, except by 4-wheel drive vehicles, and that condition would still be <br />considered consistent within the Planning Commission's interpretation of the extremely limited <br />scope to which EC 9.8320(5)(a) applies. <br />Even the City Attorney stated otherwise with regard to Oakleigh Lane's right-of-way. <br />"For purposes of EC 9.8320(5), the criteria for approval of a tentative PUD <br />application, the standards in EC 9.6870 that apply in this instance are those that <br />regulate the required width of dedicated right-of-ways." Page 13 of the City's <br />LUBA brief. <br />All that's required to see the absurdity of the Planning Commission's prior interpretation is to <br />recall the wastewater system analogy and imagine the disastrous results that would occur if the <br />Planning Commission's principle were applied consistently. This interpretation would approve a <br />PUD that has a 20-inch wastewater pipe dump its contents into an open ditch that was not <br />adjacent to the PUD property. <br />The proper way to understand and interpret EC 9.8320(5) <br />My attorney, William Kabeiseman, provided the Court of Appeals with a more sensible and <br />legally defensible interpretation of EC 9.8320(5) than the contorted versions in the Hearings <br />Official and Planning Division's decisions. The following discussion is based on my attorney's <br />testimony and provides a broader foundation for other issues that arise regarding whether or <br />not the application meets the requirements of EC 9.8320(5) and EC 9.8320(6). <br />The Tentative PUD.approval criteria related to a safe and adequate transportation system is <br />found in the following section16: <br />EC 9.8320(5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through <br />compliance with the following: <br />(a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public <br />Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below). <br />(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed <br />among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to <br />adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity <br />centers, office parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to <br />• <br />• <br />16 Another section, discussed below, also addresses the safety of the transportation system serving the PUD:, <br />EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope <br />failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 21 July 27, 2015 <br />213 <br />