Attachment B <br />application is the last opportunity that the City will have to require the dedication of the public <br />access way prior to the City needing the public access way for bike path construction. <br />The above findings and conditions demonstrate compliance with: EC 9.6805 Dedication of Public <br />Ways; EC 9.6835 Public Accessways; EC 9.6870 Street Width; EC 9.6815 Street Connectivity; and EC <br />9.6820 Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds. Based on compliance with EC 9.6870, the street standards at <br />EC 9.6850 Street Classification Map are also met. Public Works staff confirms that the following <br />street standards do not apply: EC 9.6830 Intersections of Streets and Alleys, because no <br />intersections are being created; EC 9.6810 Block Length, because no new local streets are proposed <br />or required; EC 9.6840 Reserve Strips because, given the location of the required right-of-way, a <br />reserve strip would not prevent access to adjacent properties,-which would be the only purpose of <br />a reserve strip in this case; EC 9.6845 Special Safety Requirements because the street is a dead-end <br />and, therefore, discourages use by non-local motor vehicle traffic; EC 9.6855 Street Names, because <br />no new streets are being created; EC 9.6860 Street Right-of-Way Map, because the proposal does <br />not amend the adopted map; and EC 9.6875 Private Street Design Standards because the internal <br />access is a driveway,. rather than a private street. <br />Based on the above findings and conditions, the development will comply with the applicable street <br />standards at EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875. <br />Opponent Arguments <br />Numerous neighbors argued that the anticipated increase in vehicle trips would make <br />Oakleigh lane unsafe. Many of these comments raised this concern in general terms raising the fear <br />that the existing neighbors would be put in danger as they walked, biked, played and drove along <br />the lane. These type comments are represented well by Exhibits PT-9 and HE-12. Others <br />commented in more detail about alleged errors in the designation of Oakleigh Lane as a low volume <br />residential street, and the associated right-of-way needs. The following is a summary of those more <br />detailed comments: <br />• Oakleigh Lane is an "access lane" not a "low volume residential street" - and this <br />misclassification caused the Staff to erroneously not require a traffic study. PT-1, PT- <br />2, and PT-4. <br />• The Lower River Road Concept Plan states that conditions for pedestrians and <br />bicyclists in the vicinity are worsening. PT-1 and PT-2. <br />• Treating the access lane designation as a standard, opponents argue that the <br />aggregate of existing average daily trips (about 200) combined with the ADT <br />produced by the co-housing proposal (164) would greatly exceed the 250 maximum <br />daily trips for which access lanes are designed. PT-1 and PT-2. <br />• The increase of 164 ADT is a 145% increase in the number of current vehicle trips <br />experienced by the neighborhood. That is deemed significant, and alleged to <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 23 <br />