24 <br />delivery services, provided the paved surface is not blocked by <br />parked vehicles. Since the existing paved surface provides safe <br />passage for two-way vehicular traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and <br />emergency vehicles, and since there is nothing to suggest that the <br />impacts of the proposed development will result in unsafe <br />conditions in Oakleigh Lane, it is appropriate to defer public <br />improvements via an irrevocable petition." Rec p 1268 (emphasis <br />added). <br />Neither the EPWD, the City or LUBA ever explained how to synthesize those <br />two very different views of the safety of a street that is not built to the City' <br />minimum standards. <br />These issues are important because the ordinances governing the <br />approval of PUDs specifically require the PUD to address traffic and, in <br />particular, traffic safety. EC 9.8320(5) and (6) require the PUD to address <br />whether it has provided "safe and adequate transportation systems" and whether <br />it will present a "significant risk to public health and safety." Those provisions <br />provide as follows: <br />It should be noted that, even though the City, Intervenor-Respondent and <br />LUBA all relied on this evaluation in discussing the safety of Oakleigh Lane <br />under EC 9.8320(5), the Public Works Department Report developed this <br />information in responding to EC 9.6503(3)(b), which addresses paving <br />improvements, not whether improvements should be made in the first place. <br />The Public Works Department Report did not actually provide any such <br />conclusion anywhere under its analysis of EC 9.8320(5) and (6). Instead, the <br />only analysis found in these sections or the report claim dire risks to safety if <br />Oakleigh Lane is not widened and improved to City standards. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />