The language of EC 9.8320(5) echoes this purpose and is precisely why EC 9.8320(5) <br />relies on the standards in EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 being applied to, in this case, the only street <br />that provides access to the PUD. All of these sections work together harmoniously to ensure a <br />safe and adequate, multi-modal transportation system for PUD residents. <br />In the present case, the only way to correctly apply EC 9.8320(5) is to require Oakleigh <br />Lane to meet the standards in EC 9.6800 through 9.6875, which the Hearings Official failed to <br />do. Any other interpretation fails to meet statutory requirements for construction. <br />The Hearings Official erred in failing to require a sufficient <br />paving width for Oakleigh Lane from River Road to the subject <br />property in order to comply with EC 9.8320(5) and EC 9.8320(5)(a) <br />and EC 9.8320(11)(b).20 <br />The previous section dealt with the proper application of the standards under EC 9.8320(5) with <br />respect to right-of-way. By the same rationale, Oakleigh Lane is also required to meet the <br />standards for paving, as set forth in EC Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths. (The <br />arguments in the previous section are included in this section by reference.) <br />In the present case, Oakleigh Lane would require a paving width of at least 20 feet, <br />which is feasible on Oakleigh Lane because it has a right-of-way of at least 20 feet for its entire <br />length. As noted above, however, the Hearings Official's findings are that Oakleigh Lane has <br />19-foot wide paving, which is inadequate to comply. In addition, the paving that's within the <br />right-of-way is approximately 13 feet wide for 250 feet, and the Hearings Official's findings did <br />not address this deficiency at all. <br />Because the Hearings Official relies on the inaccurate analysis of paving width by the <br />Public Works Report, as described above, the finding of compliance with EC 9.8320(11)(b) was <br />not supported by correct and reliable evidence and must be rejected by the Planning <br />Commission. <br />With respect to compliance with EC 9.8320(5), EC 9.8320(5)(a) and EC 9.8320(11)(b), in order to <br />approve the application, the Planning Commission must add a condition of approval that <br />Oakleigh Lane be paved. to at least 20 feet wide, within the right-of-way for its entire length <br />before final approval of the proposed PUD. <br />The Hearings Official erred in finding that the application <br />complied with EC 9.8320(6)62' <br />EC 9.8320(6) requires that: <br />The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not <br />limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to <br />emergency response. <br />20 These errors were raised under the Appeal Statement's Second and Fourth Assignments of Error. <br />21 This error was raised under the Appeal Statement's Third Assignment of Error. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 25 <br />July 27, 2015 <br />• <br />217 <br />