20 <br />width standard under EC 9.6870; and erroneously neglected to even address the <br />2 right-of-way issue raised in the original hearing and in the local appeal. <br />3 Ultimately, the City's decision relies on a finding that approval criterion <br />4 EC 9.8320(5) and subsection (a), which explicitly require that "[t]he PUD <br />5 provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with <br />6 * EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public <br />7 Ways" doesn't really mean what it plainly says. To put this another way, the <br />8 City's decision appear to be based on an interpretation that: <br />9 a) The code's street standards have no bearing on a public street unless and <br />10 until the street is being improved (which may never happen); and <br />11 b) The EC 9.8320(5) requirement for a proposed PUD to have "safe and <br />provide for public safety and offset impacts imposed by development. <br />Because EC 9.8320(5)(a) is concerned with the dedication of land for a <br />street, neither that provision nor EC 9.6800-9.6875 set forth standards that <br />an existing street must meet in order to serve a proposed development. By <br />its nature, a dedication only applies to the land that is subject to the given <br />land-use application. * * * <br />* * Oakleigh Lane need not have a dedicated 45 foot right-of-way and <br />associated paved surface from River Road to the subject property in order to <br />meet EC 9.8320(5)(a) because that provision is a standard for the `dedication' <br />of land, not a `service' standard akin to level of service - LOS." Rec 45. <br />The EPC, however, rejected the entire Hearings Official's argument: <br />"To the extent the HO's decision concludes that EC 9.8320(5)(a) relates only to <br />the dedication of land, the [E]PC disagrees. EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 establish <br />standards for dedication, design and location of public ways, generally." Rec 8. <br />