Answering Brief at 29, provided in the accompanying CD. The applicant's attorney cited the <br />following from the Public Works Report: <br />"This [22.5-foot] dedication would satisfy the right-of-way requirements for the <br />properties south of the centerline, with the remainder of the 45' right-of-way being <br />required from the properties on the north side of the property centerline." PH-30 at 10 <br />(Emphasis added by applicant's attorney.) <br />These Public Works staff's comments state nothing more than the way the report's author <br />assumes the required 45-foot right-of-way might feasibly be obtained. However, nothing in the <br />this statement or elsewhere in the Public Works Report, or in the Hearings Official's decision or <br />the Planning Commission's decision provides a finding and/or condition of approval that <br />explains how the necessary 45-foot right-of-way will be ensured. A means to ensure the necessary <br />45-foot wide right-of-way is what's legally required, but that's altogether missing in the <br />Hearings Official and Planning Commission decisions. The applicant's attorney just hopes to <br />elide over in this legal requirement by foisting off an unsupported assumption about the future <br />of the Oakleigh Lane right-of-way as if it were a guarantee of compliance. <br />The applicant's attorney has also attempted to finesse the 45-foot right-of-way error by <br />claiming that the Public Works Report had found that until the additional 2.5 feet of right-of- <br />way was dedicated, Oakleigh Lane would continue to provide "safe passage for two-way <br />vehicular traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles" - citing page 14 of the Public <br />Works Report. This claim is a brazen misrepresentation of what the Public Works staff actually <br />wrote, which was: <br />"Until such time that property owners elect to improve Oakleigh Lane to full City <br />standards; including sidewalks, the existing paved surface in Oakleigh Street will <br />continue to adequately provide for motorized and foot traffic, as well as for emergency <br />vehicles and delivery services, provided the paved surface is not blocked by parked <br />vehicles. Since the existing paved surface provides safe passage for two-way vehicular <br />traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles, and since there is nothing to <br />suggest that the impacts of the proposed development will result in unsafe conditions in <br />Oakleigh Lane, it is appropriate to defer public improvements via an irrevocable <br />petition." PH-30 at 14. <br />As explained above, this quote is not related to the right-of-way requirements of EC 9.8320(5), <br />but is instead addressing only paving width under the EC 9.8320(11) approval criterion. <br />Further, this section of the report doesn't in the slightest explain how to square the staff's <br />comments under EC 9.8320(5) that asserted that a 45-foot right-of-way was required or the <br />public's safety would "be at risk." The applicant's attorney clearly hopes the Planning <br />Commission won't get on to the "shell game" he's playing with the evidence. (And, as <br />discussed above and below, even this part of the report was based on an inaccurate assumption <br />about the width of Oakleigh Lane's existing pavement, and is therefore not reliable evidence.) <br />The Planning Commission, on this remand, should not accommodate the way the <br />applicant's attorney has played fast-and-loose with the facts and the law. The Planning <br />Commission's decision should, and must, be based on honest facts and reasonable <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 16 <br />July 27, 2015 <br />208 <br />