In addition, the Hearings Official adopted the following staff findings: <br />"With regard to-bicycles and pedestrians traveling westward on Oakleigh Lane toward transit <br />services on River Road, referral comments from Public Works staff state that, for unimproved <br />local streets in the River Road area (i.e., streets that lack sidewalks and have not been striped <br />to identify dedicated travel-lanes), the expectation is that pedestrians and bicyclists will share <br />the paved surface with vehicles. Additionally, there is a tendency on dead end streets such as <br />Oakleigh Lane, for motorists to travel at slower, more cautious speeds, because of the <br />perceived narrowness of the street. <br />Public Works staff confirm that, until such time that property owners elect to improve <br />Oakleigh Lane to full City standards (including sidewalks),- the existing paved suifaceof <br />Oakleigh Lane will continue'to adequately provide for vehicle and pedestrian traffic, as well as <br />for emergency vehicles and delivery services, provided the paved surface is not blocked by <br />parked vehicles. With regard to public comments received about vehicle parking occurring on <br />the shoulders of the roadway, Public Works staff notes that, technically, such parking is not <br />allowed. The street could be.signed for no parking as part of improving the street, but not <br />before, because the City does not maintain unimproved streets." (Decision at 26 and 27) <br />Notwithstanding the Hearings Official's attempt to "compartmentalize" statements in the PWD <br />Referral Response, this staff statement directly conflicts with the more specific and thorough <br />evaluation provided by PWD traffic engineers as.the justification for the exaction of right-of-way <br />and future improvements on and adjacent to the northern area of the development site. <br />Inescapably therefore,, if the conclusory statements in this staff finding were true, then the City <br />would have no justification for imposing Conditions of Approval 3, 4 and 7. <br />However, although the above statement is lengthy, it doesn't provide a shred of evidence that <br />supports the conclusion. In fact, the few bits of evidence in this statement support the PWD's <br />more thorough assessment. For example, when the "expectation is that pedestrians and bicyclists <br />will share the paved surface with vehicles" and when there is illegal parking on the right-of-way . <br />and when the City cannot even post "No Parking" signs, there are going to be unavoidable , <br />conflicts in. the roadway; and in some of those situations, the pedestrian won't be able to step off <br />the roadway due to car parked on the roadside. <br />The fact that motorists may travel at slower speeds on dead-end streets may or may not be true; <br />however, no evidence or analysis is provided specific to Oakleigh Lane under current or future <br />configurations. Furthermore, this staff statement cites no actual evidence that under the current <br />Oakleigh Lane configuration, this phenomenon would actually provide for "safe and adequate <br />transportation systems for pedestrian and bicycle" users after the PUD is built at the end of the <br />road, as required by EC 9.8320(5)(b). If the PUD's consistency with EC 9.8320(5)(b) were justified, <br />based. on this phenomenon, then the justification for Conditions of Approval 3, 4 and 7 would <br />therefore be invalid. <br />Most importantly, the staff statement.depends entirely on the condition - "provided the paved <br />surface is not blocked by parked vehicles"- for the conclusion that the existing paved surface of <br />Oakleigh Lane would continue to adequately provide for vehicle and-pedestrian traffic, as well as <br />for emergency vehicles and delivery services. Yet in the very same paragraph, the staff statement <br />Conte Testimony- December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 11 <br />267 <br />