26 <br />1 a shred of evidence that supports the conclusion. The few bits of actual <br />2 evidence in this statement support the PWD's more thorough assessment with <br />3 respect to the need for wider right-of-way. For example, this statement asserts <br />4 that the "expectation is that pedestrians and bicyclists will share the paved <br />5 surface with vehicles" and yet admits that there is illegal parking on the right- <br />6 of-way and the City cannot even post "No Parking" signs. Under such <br />7 conditions, there are going to be unavoidable conflicts in the roadway; and in <br />8 some of those situations, the pedestrian won't be able to step off the roadway <br />9 due to a car parked on the roadside. With this possibility, Oakleigh Lane cannot <br />10 be a "safe" route for pedestrians; and this is one obvious reason why Oakleigh <br />11 Lane needs a wider right-of-way to be safe as the amount of traffic doubles. <br />12 Motorists may or may not travel more slowly on some dead-end streets; <br />13 however, the record contains no probative and relevant evidence specific to <br />14 Oakleigh Lane under current or future configurations. There also is no <br />15 evidence in the record that this phenomenon, even if true, would actually <br />16 provide for "safe and adequate transportation systems for pedestrian and <br />17 bicycle" users on Oakleigh Lane after the PUD is built at the end of the road, as <br />18 required by EC 9.8320(5)(b). If the PUD's consistency with EC 9.8320(5)(b) <br />19 were justified, based on this phenomenon, then the City's justification for <br />20 Conditions of Approval 3, 4 and 7 would necessarily be invalid. <br />