21 <br />issue and was relied on by both the Hearings Official and the Planning <br />Commission.6 <br />Regarding the fifty-foot portion of Oakleigh Lane immediately adjacent <br />to the proposed development's driveway, the EPWD took the position that, in <br />order to be safe, Oakleigh Lane must be built to the City's minimum street <br />standards and anything less than that would place "the public interest in safe <br />vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel and emergency response and access <br />at risk" : <br />"As discussed in EC 9.6815 and EC 9.6870, which are <br />incorporated by reference, the required right-of-way width in <br />Oakleigh Lane is 45' through the east side of the development's <br />entry drive aisle. <br />"It is in the public's interest to have Oakleigh Lane consist of 45 <br />feet of right-of-way through the development site's entry drive <br />aisle and to consist of 33 feet beyond the drive aisle to the terminus <br />The Applicant did submit a letter from a licensed traffic engineer. Rec p <br />1116. that letter primarily addressed the trip generation rate, BUT also included <br />the conclusory statement that "I concur with the staff findings that this <br />development will not require further traffic impact analysis or reduce safety or <br />service levels on the area." Id. There is no indication that the engineer did any <br />independent analysis of this issue or provided any additional evidence other <br />than the one sentence concurrence. There was a significant amount of evidence <br />from other residents of Oakleigh Lane explaining the unsafe nature of that <br />street. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />