15 <br />Neither the EPC, the Hearings Official nor the applicant disputed this <br />2 conclusion by PWD staff that Oakleigh Lane in its current configuration would <br />3 not be safe after the increase in traffic that would arise if the PUD were <br />4 developed. The PWD findings go on to emphasize this requirement in no <br />5 uncertain terms and explicitly state that without additional right-of-way to <br />6 widen Oakleigh Lane, the public using Oakleigh Lane would be "at risk": <br />7 "Because 45 feet of right-of-way is the minimum amount of right-of-way <br />8 necessary to construct Oakleigh Lane in this manner as a low-volume street <br />9 * * * the public interest in safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel and <br />10 emergency response and access will be at risk if the 22.5 and 13 foot strips <br />11 of right-of-way are not dedicated." (Rec 1257. Emphasis added.) <br />12 PWD's analysis clearly ties "public interest" to Oakleigh Lane meeting adopted <br />13 ROW standards for streets with projected traffic in the "low-volume" range. <br />14 The PWD analysis also explicitly states that, "without additional right- <br />15 of-way," the public "will not be assured of safe access via Oakleigh Lane." <br />16 "Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to <br />17 the City's minimum street design standards and the 164 new vehicle trips <br />18 per day generated by the proposed development, along with the additional <br />19 pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by the proposed development, will <br />20 not be assured of safe access via Oaklei hg Lane." (Ibid. Emphasis added.) <br />21 Despite the above findings, the Decision's conditions of approval are <br />22 inadequate to ensure a 45-foot right-of-way for at least fifty feet adjacent to the <br />23 proposed PUD site. Instead, the decision requires the dedication of only an <br />24 additional 22.5 feet of ROW, which would result in a 42.5-foot ROW <br />