32 <br />language of the provision, but is open-ended ("including, but not limited to . . <br />As discussed above, the EPWD analysis found that a less than full build- <br />out of Oakleigh Lane would raise significant safety concerns (at the very least <br />where Oakleigh Lane is adjacent to the proposed development site) and, <br />whether or not EC 9.8320(5) requires the improvement of the existing portion <br />of Oakleigh Lane, EC 9.8320(6) does require the City to at least evaluate the <br />safety of the entire length of Oakleigh Lane. <br />Even if EC 9.8320(6) were not an open-ended provision, at the least, it <br />clearly requires that a PUD cannot be "an impediment to emergency response." <br />The only evidence in the record addressing emergency response states that the <br />proposed PUD would be an impediment to emergency response unless certain <br />steps were taken: <br />"The existing paved surface in Oakleigh Street will continue to <br />adequately provide for motorized and foot traffic, as well as for <br />emergency vehicles and delivery services, provided the paved <br />surface is not blocked by parked vehicles." Rec p 1268. <br />Despite this explicit qualification, the City never took any steps to ensure that <br />no parking would occur on the paved portions of Oakleigh Lane and, therefore, <br />the City erred by concluding that the proposed PUD complied with EC <br />9.8320(6). <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />