t <br />10 Petitioners argue that the planning commission's findings under EC <br />11 : 9.8320(5)(b), that the current 14-foot paved width of Oalcleigh Lane is unsafe. <br />12 "for pedestrians and bicyclists (and which prompted imposition of Condition <br />13 20), conflicts with the planning commission's findings under EC 9.8320(6) that <br />14 with.a paved width of 14 feet as required under Condition 1.8 Oakleigh Lane,is <br />15 not a "significant risk". to safety and not an "impediment to emergency <br />16 response." According to petitioners, the planning commission's finding that <br />17 . 'Oakleigh Lane is unsafe-for purposes of EC 9.8320(5)(b) compels a: similar <br />