is nothing to suggest that the impacts of the proposed development will result in <br />unsafe conditions in Oakleigh Lane, it is appropriate to defer public improvements <br />via an irrevocable petition." <br />The comments provide no data or analysis to support the conclusion that "there is <br />nothing to suggest that the impacts of the proposed development will result in unsafe <br />conditions in Oakleigh Lane"; and, in fact, the prior comments in the "Constitutional <br />Findings for Exaction" section of this same document (cited above) do more than <br />"suggest" the impacts of the proposed development will result in unsafe conditions. <br />The following statement makes this clear: <br />"Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the <br />City's minimum street design standards and the 16410 new vehicle trips per day <br />generated by the proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and <br />bicycle traffic generated by the posed development, will not be assured of safe <br />access via Oakleigh Lane." (Emphasis added.) <br />The City cannot reasonably defer public improvements - even on the area of the <br />development site area where they are requiring an irrevocable petition - when the City <br />insists pedestrians and bicyclists won't be safe without the improvement. <br />The City is impermissibly using the fagade of an irrevocable petition to as the basis for <br />compliance with safety criteria, when a reasonable person would conclude that the <br />improvement associated with the petition - that is, the improvement that ostensibly will <br />provide safe conditions - will not and cannot feasibly occur. <br />EC 9.6505(4) Sidewalks or EC 9.6505(5) Bicycle Paths and Accesswus. The findings do <br />not address safety conditions for bicycle travel down Oakleigh Lane to connect with the <br />services at River Road. <br />EC 9.8320(12) <br />The Staff Report states: <br />"Public Works staff confirm that the development will have minimal off-site traffic <br />impacts, as only 29 additional peak hour trips will be generated by the development. <br />Public Works staff state that Oakleigh Lane currently provides for safe passage of <br />two-way and emergency vehicles. No street improvements are required of the <br />development, although right-of-way dedication and an Irrevocable Petition are <br />being required to enable future public improvements. Pedestrian safety is further <br />addressed at EC 9.8320(5)(b); those findings are incorporated by reference." <br />10 As mentioned earlier, the correct number is 169 ITE-ADT. <br />October 9, 2013 Conte testimony re PUD 13-1 17 1 P a g e <br />