r - <br />e <br /> <br />3 <br />the requirement to -submit a T1A, including EC 9.8670(2were met, and <br />d <br />2 ° <br />aceordmgly did xzot reqwire 'OM, to submit a TIA: <br />3 <br />Petitioners 'argue that, because.<the phanning,.commssion concluded that <br />4 paving improvements to.Oakleigh' Lane are needed in; order to render `Oakleigh <br />„ 5 . <br />Lane safe for 'pedestrians and bicyclists, the' planning commission. necessarily <br /> <br />. <br />C <br />b ' <br />g <br />must .also conclude that : 0ald' h Lane is an .'!identified. .Iocation where <br />T ; <br />edestrian and/or:'bic clist safet is a -concern: b the city. , that is docuimented,", <br />P._... _y,. Y.: <br />8' <br />within the meamrig of 'EC 9:8670(2); and therefore-the. pl'anning• commission <br />9.; <br />` <br />aTIA.''.Pettioners contend that the <br />erred in. failing .o req. wire O1VIC to rovide <br />10 <br />pl"annzng. Oommission's - 2017 :decision constitutes . ,`.`document[ation]" of'.. a <br />11 <br />location where pedestrian and bicyclist safety is, a:concern. <br />12. <br />The 'city responds, ::and. we 'agree, --:that the. planning. commission's. <br />13. <br />response fo;;.safety concerns raised .'by neighbors does not constitute, <br />i <br />14 <br />"document[ation]" - by : ,,the `city that Oalcleigh .Lane is a -location `where <br />pedestrian .and bicyclist safety is a concern; within. the meaning of EC <br />16 <br />9 8670(2)Under EC 9.8670(2),'it is clear that the city "document[ation]" that <br />17 <br />_ triggers ,the requirement to submit a TIA as part of the PUFD application must <br />-18' <br />exist prior to the . PUD application or.. at least .-'prior to the. close . of the , <br />19 <br />ev' deiitiary.proceedings on the PUD application; the reference to.'concems.-that <br />20 <br />' <br />aie ,documented cannot logically or possibly refer to the findings ado- ted' in <br />o <br /> <br />21 <br />the city's final .decision' on the - PUD application. Stated . differently, the <br />. - <br />22- <br />findings. regarding EC .9`.8670(2) in -the city's final decision on the disputed <br />,F • <br />Page 20 <br />, <br />r._,• <br />t <br />