13 <br />1 pedestrians. The approval was appropriately conditioned to include these <br />2 dedications. Rec. 409; ER 75. Accordingly, the intervenor fails to establish any <br />3 error in the City's determination that Oakleigh Lane is safe and will be safe <br />4 with the PUD. <br />5 The intervenor also argues that the City's findings regarding the safety of <br />6 Oakleigh Lane are not supported by a "shred of evidence." Brief, p. 25-6. <br />7 However, the City's findings were based on the unrefuted evidence in the <br />8 record that the development would not result in adverse safety impacts to <br />9 Oakleigh Lane. Rec. 1268-69. In fact, City public works staff found "no <br />10 concerns related to traffic safety issues or poor service levels which will <br />11 result from this development." Rec. 1265. (Emphasis added). Moreover, <br />12 licensed professional traffic engineer Mike Weishar, with Access Engineering, <br />13 concurred that the development would not "reduce safety or service levels in <br />14 the area." Rec. 1116 (Emphasis added). This is substantial evidence that <br />15 supports the City's findings that the PUD provides a safe and adequate access <br />16 for pedestrians and cyclists. <br />17 The intervenor also argues there will be "unavoidable conflicts" between <br />18 pedestrians and vehicles if the right-of-way is not widened, due to "illegal <br />19 parking" on Oakleigh Lane. Brief, p. 26. The intervenor speculates that <br />20 "pedestrians won't be able to step off the roadway due to a car parked on the <br />21 roadside." lu. however, he cites to no evidence of conflicts between illegally <br />