1:. <br />- ermit.' rocess.. Condition. 20. s silence. on technical construction. <br />engineer. P <br />- <br />2. <br />details does not mean that it, is ambiguous regarding. the meaning of "paving," <br />3 . <br />- or. that the lack of specificity- on such details means that the _ condition <br />4 : <br />inadequate. .to accomplish its intended-purpose., <br />S - <br />2., Feasibility of.Condition 20.:. <br />6 . <br />. Petitioners next argue that if Condition 20 is understood to-- require that <br />7 <br />the applicant . construct full. street' improvements . to city' ' standards; then . <br />8 <br />`implementation of Condition 20 is not feasible, because there is- insufficient <br />9 <br />room within. a.20-foot. right-of-way to provide 20 feet of pavement, plus curbs; <br />10 <br />gutters, sidewalks, etc. However, as discussed above.,. Condition -20 is not 7 <br />11 <br />reasonably interpreted to require full street improvements, and- hence: this <br />12 <br />= argument does not provide a basis for reversal or remand.- . <br />--13 <br />3. Adequacy of Condition 20 to~ Ensure Compliance with ;EC <br />14 <br />9.8320(5)(b), f <br />15. <br />Petitioners contend that only if Condition 20 is interpreted.to require full . <br />1.6 <br />street improvements, or at least a sidewalk or other dedicated-travel ,lane to <br />17 <br />separate. pedestrians and bicyclists from motorized traffic, can the. condition be. <br />18 <br />adequate to comply with EC 9:8320(5)(b)''s requirement for `a "safe and <br />19 <br />adequate"' transportation system. Under"any other interpretation, that does not <br />20 <br />provide for a segregated travel lane for bicycles,- pedestrians; etc:; petitioners <br />21 <br />.;'argue that Condition 20 is. insufficient to comply With EC 9.8320(5)(b). <br />22` <br />. The planning commission rejected similar arguments . below that. <br />. <br />23 <br />Oalcleigii Lane must be improved to full "city standards in order, to comply wzth " <br />Page 15 ~ ` t _ <br />