safe vehicular, pedestrian and.bicycle travel and emergency response and access will be <br />at risk if the 22.5 and 13 foot strips of right-of-way are not dedicated." (Ibid. Emphasis <br />added.) <br />And again: <br />"Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the City's <br />minimum street design standards- and the 16411 new vehicle trips per day generated by <br />the proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic <br />generated by the proposed development, will not be assured'of safe access via Oakleigh <br />Lane." (Decision at 22. Emphasis added.) <br />The PWD staff analysis and findings provide an unmistakably clear conclusion that Oakleigh <br />'Lane must be improved to Low Volume Residential Street standards to safely and adequately <br />handle the additional PUD resident vehicle trips, emergency vehicles and the current and <br />additional motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. , <br />All of these findings were adopted by the Hearings Officer. (Decision at pages, 21, 22 and 24) <br />While these findings were presented to justify requiring the applicant to dedicate a section of <br />the development site as part of the Oakleigh Lane right-of=way, the conclusion that a 45' right- <br />of-way and street improvements (such as sidewalks) are necessary for the safety of pedestrians, <br />bicyclists and motorists applies to the right-of-way for the entire 1,000-foot length of Oakleigh <br />Lane. <br />No reasonable person could conclude that the PWD analysis means that the entire reason <br />Oakleigh Lane would be unsafe if the PUD were built is because the short segment at the very <br />end of the road wasn't wide enough and improved. <br />The PWD Referral Response included additional conclusions, which were also adopted by the <br />Hearings Official, and these documented the City's specific concerns about bicycle and <br />pedestrian safety on Oakleigh. Lane: <br />"Public Works staff indicates that the applicant's proposal is sufficient to accommodate the <br />turnaround, but not the area necessary to extend the sidewalk along the south side of the <br />turnaround, to separate pedestrians from vehicles and provide a safe public walking surface <br />for the residents of the proposed development." (Decision at 19. Emphasis added.) <br />And: <br />"Improving Oakleigh Lane to these (City) standards will allow for two-way vehicular and <br />bicycle traffic, will provide separation between vehicular traffic and pedestrians....' (Decision <br />at 21. Emphasis added.) <br />These statements by PWD traffic engineers make clear that an essential reason the City <br />standard requires a 45-foot right-of-way for Low Volume Residential Streets is to allow room <br />for sidewalks that are safe and well-separated from vehicular traffic. <br />"The correct number of trips is 168 or 169 additional round trips; see Footnote 2, above. <br />Conte Testimony - December 5, 2013 - • PDT 13-1 - Page 6 <br />262 <br />