Obviously, if the sidewalk were to comprise only 50 feet along the proposed development's <br />northern property line, residents from the development would have to walk in the street for the <br />remaining 1,000feetto River Road. Current residents would obviously still have to walk in the <br />street, as well. <br />Hearings Official findings are in error <br />As noted above, the Hearings Official made an erroneous,. overarching attempt t-o <br />"compartmentalize"'the PWD analysis and conclusions. This attempt to compartmentalize the <br />analysis does not meet the tests of "reasonableness" or "consistency," as discussed. above. <br />In addition, the Hearings Official made multiple errors in other findings regarding the future <br />safety of Oakleigh Lane, which are all rebutted below. <br />Under EC 9.8320(5) <br />EC 9.8320(5) requires that "[t]he PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems <br />The Hearings Official stated: <br />"The-opponents have raised numerous 'safety' concerns and arguments that go well beyond <br />the fundamental requirement of EC 9.8320(5). The very structure of EC9.8320(5) does not <br />require an applicant to prove that a proposed development will be safe from any and all <br />asserted and or imagined traffic safety threats. The language of EC 9.8320(5) states: '(t)he <br />PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems.through compliance with the <br />following:' The underlined section demonstrates that the provision is limited by its own words <br />to a requirement showing three things: a) that EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 can be met, b) that <br />pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation can be achieved, and c) that if necessary a Traffic <br />Impact Analysis has been done and mitigation provided. In other words, the adopted <br />provisions of EC 9.8320(5) assume that if those three criteria can be met, a "safe and adequate <br />transportation system' will result." (Decision at 24.) <br />First off, the Hearings Official inaccurately implies opposition arguments claim that EC 9.8320(5) <br />"require[s] an applicant to prove that.a proposed development will be safe from any and all <br />asserted and or imagined traffic safety'threats." This would be a ridiculous. claim, and opponents <br />never made any such argument. <br />The other part of the Hearings Official's finding is that compliance with the three subelements of <br />EC 9.8320(5) is-sufficient to demonstrate. compliance with EC 9.8320(5). This is true- as long as <br />the evaluation of the three subelements reflects the EC'9.8320(5) requirement that "ftJhe PUD <br />provides safe and adequate transportation systems." <br />The Hearings Official, however, failed to apply the three subelements of EC 9.8320(5) in the <br />correct manner, as described below. <br />Under EC 9.8320(5)(.a) <br />The Hearings Official explains his understanding of EC 9.8320(5) as follows: <br />Conte Testimony - December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 7 <br />263 <br />