35 <br />1 clear that Oakleigh Lane will not be maintained even after the PUD is <br />2 developed. Rec 883-884, 1172. Thus, the Decision's finding that this already <br />3 deficient road will "continue" to be adequate is contrary to the preponderance of <br />4 evidence and wholly unreasonable. <br />5 Furthermore, in interpreting the requirements of EC 9.8320(6), the EPC, <br />6 Hearings Official and staff failed to consider the context that clearly shows <br />7 City Council's intent, including the requirements of EC 9.8320(5) and <br />8 EC 9.8320(5)(b), and the purpose statements set forth in EC 9.0020 and <br />9 EC 9.6800. Additional context in this particular case can be found in the <br />10 provisions of EC 9.6820(4), described supra, that state "[p]ublic accessways to <br />11 provide safe circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency vehicles shall <br />12 be required from a cul-de-sac * * * longer than 150' in length." <br />13 The decision must be remanded for the City to properly evaluate <br />14 EC 9.8320(6) and to require adequate right-of-way, sidewalks and other <br />15 improvements on Oakleigh Lane between the development and River Road, so <br />16 that the resulting vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and emergency vehicle traffic <br />17 on Oakleigh Lane is not at risk. <br />18 5ubassi2nment of Error I.F. The Decision did not properly evaluate the <br />19 requirements of EC 9.8320(11)(b) with respect to Oakleigh Lane. <br />20 EC 9.8320(11) requires that the PUD complies with all of the following: <br />