And without seeing the other pages, and even if they do not relate to the segment in question, even only as a way to determine the general validity of calculations or observations or commentary made on the survey, this is most likely an incomplete analysis but you were asked for the entire survey and you opted to post only part of it, So here it goes anyways:
First, the survey is dated 04/04/2007 and as such would then have to conform to the 2006 CA-MUTCD. From there we go to the speed charts
The 43mph determined to be the 85th percentile speed was deemed so in error, in my opinion.
If you count 15 vehicles from the top, you will end up within the 43mph speed bracket...
But is that vehicle #85, or is that vehicle # 86?
I count it as vehicle #86 and so the next one down, is in fact the 85th percentile position, and would therefore represent the 85th percentile speed which turns out to be 42mph.
It appears to be a typo though simply because it makes little difference whether we start with 43mph and follow thrrough to the end, we get the same result if it were 42mph. If we consider the 42mph to be the 85th percentile speed, then from Section 2B.13 of the 2006 CA-MUTCD, page 2B-7, it states:
When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within established at the nearest 10 km/h or 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.
And so the 85th percentile is 42mph, reduced to the nearest 5mph increment would set it at 40mph, and putting that through the last usual step:
The posted speed may be reduced by 10 km/h (5 mph) from the nearest 10 km/h or 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed, where engineering study indicates the need for a reduction in speed to match existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community.
And in light of the high accident rare, the presence of the bike lane on both sides of the roadway, would clearly justify an additional 5mph reduction in the speed limit. Which would then make the safe speed to be posted as a P.F. speed of 35mph.
Whether it was a typo or a miscalculation, an experienced judge who knows how to read surveys can briefly review it and see that the results will be the same regardless, and a judge who hasn't a clue is likely to look at it and accept it for what it is. So I think you'd be stuck with it either way.
Lastly, and you mentioned 7 pages, posted 3, 2 additional pages are likely the speed charts for the other 2 segments, and I can't think of what the last page could be about but you might find something else in that page... I don't know!