demonstrate consistency with constitutional requirements. "Nearby" means <br />uses within 1/4 mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, <br />and uses within 2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through <br />9.8680 where applicable. <br />The opening portion of EC 9.8320(5) is a simple, straightforward and explicit requirement that a <br />proposed PUD must provide safe and adequate transportation systems. This text is the <br />overarching statement of the criterion that a PUD must meet, not mere boilerplate as the <br />Hearings Official decision would have it. <br />The Hearings Official claimed that EC 9.8320(5) can be properly applied solely by <br />evaluating the three subsections, independently of the opening statement or one-another17; and, if <br />proposed PUD satisfies each provision in turn, then the proposed PUD must be deemed to meet <br />the requirement that it will provide safe and adequate transportation systems. The Hearings <br />Official's interpretation implies that the approval criterion would be virtually the same if the <br />opening portion simply said: "The PUD must comply with the following, wholly independent <br />requirements." <br />It inevitably follows, according to the Hearings Official's interpretation, that the opening <br />portion might even go so far as to state: "The PUD must comply with the following, wholly <br />independent requirements - even if the result would demonstrably not ensure a safe and <br />adequate transportation system." (Ridiculous, I know, but exactly the line in the sand that the <br />Hearings Official attempted to draw in the Oakleigh Meadows PUD decision.) <br />The Hearings Official's decision eviscerates the EC 9.8320(5)(a) requirements for <br />adequate right-of-way and paving widths, as specified in EC 9.6870, with the result that the <br />City's adopted street design standards are effectively eliminated from any role at all in ensuring <br />a PUD provides a "safe and adequate transportation system." This interpretation omits what is <br />explicit in the code and impermissibly leads to absurd results. <br />Such an interpretation would leave out several critical aspects of this approval criterion. <br />First, nowhere in any of the three subsections is there a specific requirement that the <br />PUD actually provide a "transportation system" - which is the heart of this criterion. Ignoring <br />the actual text of EC 9:8320(5) impermissibly omits what is in the code. <br />And, knowing that the PUD must provide a "transportation system," the immediate <br />question is: For whom? Obviously, for the PUD residents, at the very least. <br />The next step in a reasonable interpretation is: What is required to provide the PUD <br />residents a transportation system? Certainly a transportation system might include some <br />17 "The very structure of EC9.8320(5) does not require an applicant to prove that a proposed development will be safe from any <br />and all asserted and or imagined traffic safety threats." HO Decision at 24. Having no legitimate legal theory for his <br />interpretation of EC 9.8320(s), the Hearings Official resorted to erecting a ridiculous straw man that has no basis in appellants' <br />arguments or the code. Simply put, the code requires what it says: That the PUD must provide a safe and effective <br />transportation system. And it is the City's own analysis and adopted standards that appellants rely on, not some arbitrary <br />protection from "imagined" safety threats. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 22. July 27, 2015 <br />214 <br />