38 <br />1 future need for street improvements, rather than any immediate need <br />2 associated with the proposed PUD." (Rec 10) <br />3 The Decision again found for EC 9.8320(11)(b): <br />4 "The PC finds that the HO did not err in finding compliance with <br />5 EC9.8320(11)(b). As confirmed under the second assignment of error, the <br />6 PC determines that the PW referral comments are not evidence of a safety <br />7 concern under existing or proposed conditions." (Ibid) <br />8 The Decision reiterated essentially the same findings near its conclusion. Rec 15. <br />9 In all of these findings, the City made a fundamental error by relying on a <br />10 conclusion that the "findings in the Public Works [Department] referral comments <br />11 are limited to justification for a proportional right-of-way exaction" and the <br />12 "findings included in the staff report and PW[D] referral comments (Pages 2-4 of <br />13 Exhibit PH-30) were adopted to justify exaction from the applicant." <br />14 While it's true that the City used the PWD analysis only to justify <br />15 exaction, the analysis nevertheless reached a substantial and probative conclu- <br />16 sion - which the City adopted - that "[w]ithout the additional right-of-way, <br />17 Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the City's minimum street design stan- <br />18 dards and the 164 new vehicle trips per day generated by the proposed develop- <br />19 ment, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by the <br />20 proposed development, will not be assured of safe access via Oaklei hg Lane." <br />21 Note that the PWD conclusion describes what's required to ensure "safe <br />22 access via Oaklei hg Lane." PWD's analysis did not limit this conclusion to <br />