34 <br />I The City specifically erred in not explaining how the current <br />2 configuration of Oakleigh Lane would not be an impediment to emergency <br />3 response when the PWD's analysis explicitly found that "emergency response <br />4 and access will be at risk" unless Oakleigh Lane's right-of-way was widened <br />5 and the road improved. Nothing in the staff findings for EC 9.8320(5)(b) and <br />6 (11)(b) could reasonably be construed as adequately addressing this issue. <br />7 In the staff comments under EC 9. 320(5)(b), staff cites to a PWD <br />8 statement that "the existing paved surface of Oakleigh Lane will continue to <br />9 adequately provide for * * * emergency vehicles and delivery services, <br />10 provided the paved surface is not blocked by parked vehicles." Rec 46. But the <br />11 same statement admits that nothing ensures the paved surface would not <br />12 blocked by parked vehicles at the time an emergency vehicle travels down or <br />13 back on Oakleigh Lane. Thus, the PWD statement does not provide an <br />14 adequate finding. There is also no explanation in the referenced findings of <br />15 how such the conclusory statement related to EC 9.8320(5)(b) squares with the <br />16 more extensive analysis provided in the PWD justification of the exactions. <br />17 The assertion that "Oakleigh Lane will continue to adequately provide for <br />18 emergency vehicles" is simply a conclusory statement that is inconsistent <br />19 with the more thorough analysis provided in the same document to justify the <br />20 exaction of right-of-way. Lane County and City public works staff also make <br />