Furthermore, the Public Works Report's analysis of compliance with paving width <br />standards does not contain an unqualified conclusion that Oakleigh Lane would adequately <br />provide for motorized and foot traffic, as well as emergency vehicles and delivery services as <br />the Hearings Official claimed. The Public Works Report makes clear that providing an adequate <br />transportation system that relies solely on Oakleigh Lane is wholly dependent on ensuring that <br />parked vehicles do not block Oakleigh Lane's narrow paved surface. The Hearings Official and <br />Planning Commission ignored this qualification, and neither of them provided a finding that <br />the necessary condition for an unobstructed Oakleigh Lane would, or could, be met in order to <br />satisfy the EC 9.8320(11)(b) Public Improvement Standards approval criteria. Therefore, this <br />particular part of the Public Works Report analysis is not adequate or probative evidence <br />sufficient to support the Hearings Official's finding that the application satisfied the <br />requirements of EC 9.8320(5). <br />Of course, the applicant or staff may argue that if the pavement is wide enough to be <br />safe, then obviously that's all that's necessary. But there are three fatal problems with that <br />conclusory leap: <br />1. As shown above, significant portions of the pavement are outside the right-of-way <br />and on private land. At any time, the respective property owners could forbid <br />vehicles from crossing their property, thus significantly narrowing the useful <br />pavement width. The record contains no analysis of this possibility. <br />2. As explained above, there would have to be a finding that ensured the entire 19-foot <br />width of the pavement would remain unobstructed. In fact, property owners can <br />legally park on the paving that's on their own property, thus obstructing the <br />pavement. <br />3. It is precisely the City street standards' requirement for a right-of-way on a Low <br />Volume Street that is wider than the paving that allows for sidewalk(s) to separate <br />pedestrians from traffic, and thereby ensure the pedestrians' safety. The Public Works <br />Report is clear on this point: <br />"Staff notes that while the applicant's proposal is sufficient to accommodate the <br />turnaround, the proposal does not include a sidewalk along the south side of the <br />turnaround which would be necessary to separate pedestrians from vehicles and <br />provide a safe public walking surface for the residents of the proposed <br />development. The amount of right-of-way necessary to allow for the construction <br />of the proposed turnaround and adjacent sidewalk would be 33' or 13' on the <br />south side of the existing centerline, which as previously noted is co-incident <br />with the property line. These dimensions assume a 21' wide paved surface that is <br />shown on the tentative plan as being located 6' south of the existing northerly <br />right-of-way line, a 6" curb, a 5' sidewalk and a 6" area adjacent to the sidewalk <br />for construction and maintenance purposes." PH-30 at 10. <br />In sum, the record contains unchallenged evidence from the Public Works Report's analysis of <br />EC 9.8320(5)(a) from which a reasonable person could only conclude that Oakleigh Lane must <br />have at least a 45-foot right of way for its entire length to be consistent with EC 9.8320(5). And <br />• <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 19 <br />July 27, 2015 <br />211 <br />