Attachment A <br />inherently create unsafe conditions for children, bicyclists, pedestrians and drivers <br />along Oakleigh Lane. PT-1 and PT-2. <br />• The existing right-of-way of Oakleigh Lane is insufficient for safe travel of the newly <br />generated vehicle trips. PT-1. <br />• The Staffs conclusion that a dedication of land for the necessary right-of-way along <br />the subject property's frontage on Oakleigh Lane is proof that the development will <br />cause unsafe conditions for the length of Oakleigh Lane. PT-4. <br />• Safe conditions cannot be assured on Oakleigh Lane unless the right-of-way along <br />the entire lane is increased to 45 feet and the paved surface increased. That cannot <br />occur because the local residents have not agreed to it and structures might need to <br />be removed in order to widen the street. PT-4 and PT.R-2. <br />• The Hearings Official cannot rely on Staff's conciusory opinion that the proposal will <br />create no new adverse traffic safety conditions. PT.R-2. <br />• The applicant's street connectivity study is flawed and does not demonstrate that <br />nearby properties can be developed to their maximum potential. PT-1 and PT-4. <br />Hearings Official Conclusions <br />The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for EC 9.8320(5) and adopts those <br />findings by this reference - consistent with the findings below. <br />The opponents have raised numerous "safety" concerns and arguments that go well beyond the <br />fundamental requirement of EC 9.8320(5). The very structure of EC 9.8320(5) does not require an <br />applicant to prove that;a proposed development will be safe from any and all asserted and or <br />imagined traffic safety threats. The language of EC 9.8320(5) states: "[t]he PUD provides safe and <br />adequate transportation systems through compliance with the following:" The underlined section <br />demonstrates that the provision is limited by its own words to a requirement showing three things: <br />a) that EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 can be met, b) that pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation can <br />be achieved, and c) that if necessary a Traffic Impact Analysis has been done and mitigation <br />provided. In other words, the adopted provisions of EC 9.8320(5) assume that if those three criteria <br />can be met, a "safe and adequate transportation system" will result. <br />EC 9.8320(5)(a) requires an applicant to demonstrate that it is possible, when necessary, for the <br />applicant to "dedicate" sufficient land to accommodate public ways, including right-of-way for <br />streets under EC 9.6800-8675. The purpose of those sections of the code are set forth in EC 9.6800 <br />and states: "[s]ections 9.6800 through 9.6875 establish standards for the dedication, design and <br />location of public ways to address the purpose of this land use code contained in EC 9.0020 <br />Purpose." The pertinent sections of EC 9.6800 are EC 9.6805 and EC 9.6870. Importantly, EC <br />9.6805 allows the city to "require dedication of public ways for bicycle and/or pedestrian use as <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 24 <br />