The record shows that there is already 20 feet of paving within the dedicated right of way for almost <br />the entire length of Oakleigh Lane. The requirement to improve Oakleigh Lane to 20 feet amounts to <br />an improvement of very small fraction of the entire length of Oakleigh Lane. Given that the proposed <br />PUD will generate an additional 168 new trips on Oakleigh Lane and will increase the pedestrian and <br />bicycle use of Oakleigh Lane, and given the small amount of improvement that will be necessary, the <br />requirement to improve Oakleigh Lane to a minimum of 20 feet within the right of way is roughly <br />proportionate to the impact the proposed development will have on the City's transportation facilities. <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 and conditions, the PC finds that the HO was correct in determining <br />compliance with EC 9.8320(5). The HO findings on page 18-29 are hereby incorporated by reference as <br />further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. To <br />provide clarity on the basis for the cul-de-sac length exception, the PC modifies the HO decision to <br />include 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 significant 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 />8. Sub-assignment of Error 3.8: the Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own <br />analysis that Oakleigh Lane would be an impediment to emergency response unless the <br />right-of-way was widened and the road improved. <br />Based on the previous determination under the second assignment of error about the limited scope of <br />the constitutional findings for right-of-way exaction, the PC finds no basis in the record to require <br />additional right-of-way dedication under EC 9.8320(6). The PC concludes that the HO's conditions for <br />right-of-way dedications and irrevocable petitions address a future need for street improvements, <br />rather than any immediate need associated with the proposed PUD. With regard to soil erosion, slope <br />failure, and flood hazard, the HO findings on page 29-31 are hereby incorporated by reference as <br />further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. <br />With regard to the provision of emergency vehicle response, the applicant asserts that the proposed <br />access on Oakleigh Lane and hammerhead turnaround within the development site is sufficient for the <br />proposed development. Referral comments from Public Works staff indicate that this on-site <br />turnaround must provide for emergency vehicle access by being within a temporary emergency access <br />easement. The proposed turnaround area meets the dimension requirements for a hammerhead. <br />Referral comments from the Fire Marshal state no concern with the turnaround. The permanent <br />turnaround is anticipated at the end of Oakleigh Lane, when properties to the north further develop. <br />2017 Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 7 <br />