the record contains no contrary evidence supporting a finding that a lesser right-of-way width <br />would" be consistent with EC 9.8320(5). <br />In retrospect, it's clear that, lacking any genuine analysis of the right-of-way <br />requirements for the greater part of Oakleigh Lane, the Hearings Official merely attempted to <br />put a wall around the Public Works findings under EC 9.8320(5) and rely instead on a <br />misrepresentation of the findings under EC 9.8320(11)(b). As explained above, however, no <br />matter in what respect the Public Works staff themselves may have intended to use their own <br />analysis, the analysis results cannot be quarantined. And, as explained, the flawed analysis and <br />conclusions regarding paving width under EC 9.8320(11)(b) do not support the Hearings <br />Official's finding that Oakleigh Lane in its current condition is safe or meets the right-of-way <br />requirements of EC 9.8320(5). <br />What's left after clearing up the Hearings Official's misrepresentations of what's in the <br />record and his misapplication of Dolan is a completely different picture of what the evidence in <br />the record supports, and that picture is consistent with common sense, as well. Oakleigh Lane <br />must have a much wider right-of-way, at least 45 feet by City standards, to adequately and <br />safely handle the additional volume of traffic that will arise from the proposed PUD. <br />The Planning Commission must now revisit and revise its findings so the findings are in <br />accord with the law and the evidence. In doing so, the Planning Commission is required to <br />explain how it reaches its findings and the evidence upon which it relied; and that evidence <br />must be reliable and probative. With a clearer picture of the Hearings Officials' errors, the <br />Planning Commission cannot simply recycle their prior decision. <br />Finally, I want to dispense with one other argument by the Hearings Official - that the <br />specific right-of-way standards for EC 9.8320(5) (set forth under EC 9.8320(5)(a) and found in <br />EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875) apply only to land "dedicated" by the applicant. The Planning <br />Commission rejected this ridiculous argument, as it would rob EC 9.8320(5) of any way to <br />ensure PUD residents were provided safe and adequate transportation systems. <br />However, the Planning Commission's prior finding that "neither EC 9.8320(5)(a) nor <br />EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 require that an existing street must meet certain standards in order to <br />serve a proposed development" 15 is just as unreasonable with respect to the minimum width of <br />Oakleigh Lane's right-of-way that's necessary to provide an adequate and safe transportation <br />system for the PUD. Notably, the Planning Commission decision offered no alternative to the <br />standards in EC 9.6870, nor did the Planning Commission point to any analysis to justify <br />accepting Oakleigh Lane's grossly substandard right-of-way widths as adequate. <br />It should be obvious that to ensure that PUD residents would be provided safe and <br />adequate transportation systems, the street standards in EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 have to be <br />applied to Oakleigh Lane because it's the only street that provides PUD residents, delivery and <br />service vehicles, and emergency vehicles with vehicular access. An "adequate transportation <br />system" for a PUD cannot reasonably be limited to just vehicle use areas on the PUD site itself <br />or just to the immediately adjacent street segment; and Oakleigh Lane must have an adequate <br />15 Planning Commission Final Order at 3. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 20 July 27, 2015 <br />212 <br />