19 <br />Right-of-way standards. The subject PUD must comply with the EC 9.6870 <br />2 adopted standards for street right-of-way and improvements, as shown in <br />3 Exhibit B, incorporated herein. Note that EC 9.6870 allows the City to require <br />4 a greater, but not lesser, right-of-way width for PUD applications submitted in <br />5 accordance with EC 9.8320 PUD approval, but the Decision cites no code <br />6 provision that allows an exception to the requirements of EC 9.6870. <br />7 The EPC failed to require Oakleigh Lane to meet the adopted standards: <br />8 "The [E]PC finds that the HO was correct in his application of <br />9 EC9.8320 {5), as being limited in scope to compliance with the following: a) <br />10 that EC9.6800 through 9.6875 can be met * * That said, the PC agrees <br />11 that neither EC 9.8320(5)(a) nor EC9.6800 through 9.6875 require that an <br />12 existing street must meet certain standards in order to serve a proposed <br />13 development. EC 9.6870 only provides the required paving widths for <br />14 certain types of streets when and if those streets are ever fully improved to <br />15 City standards." Rec 8. <br />16 The EPC cited no basis for this interpretation of the code, other than expressing <br />17 apparent agreement with the Hearings Official's conclusion that Oakleigh Lane <br />18 didn't have to meet City standards in order to ensure "safe and adequate <br />19 transportation systems."5 The EPC finding also addresses only the paving <br />5 The Hearings Officials finding stated: <br />"The opponents [sic] arguments fundamentally misconstrue the requirement <br />of EC 9.8320(5)(a) which is to ensure that a proposed development is <br />capable of dedicating sufficient land along the property frontage to meet the <br />right-of-way width requirements for that street designation. A `dedication' <br />is a form of legal 'taking' of property for public use that is intended to <br />