toot travel lane is an impediment . to emergency response. <br />3 Further, petitioners 'argue that vehicle& parked.,in or :adjoining to the: <br />4 paved travel lane may preclude even a single emergency response vehicle. from <br />5 : reaching. the PUD. Petitioners argue that. it is common (and legal given the <br />b current apparent` absence of city or county parking restrictions): for`vehicles to <br />7 park within-the 20-f6ot right-of-way itself, and also f6i ve'hicles.to park"on both <br />gh Lane. - Petitioners posit-that if two, s <br />' ` 8 sides of Oaklei ix=foot=wide'vehicles are <br />9 <br />each other on both sides. of Oakleigh :Lane within the 207foot: <br />parked opposite w <br /> <br />10 right-of-way; .'th'ey will necessarily take: up : the majority the. right-of-way, <br />11 leaving ins-6 fficient room for a 10-foot wide emergency response . vehicle , to <br />12 pass. <br />13 For this reason, petitioners argue that. Condition 20; requiring that OMC <br />14 improve the paved width to 20 feet within the 20-f6ot right-of way,,does not <br />15 provide any support for the city's findings- addressing EC 9.8320(6): <br />16 Improving the pavement width to 20 feet. within the 20-foot right. of--way does <br />17 not alter- the fact that cars, can and do legally park on' both sides of Oakleigh <br />18 Lane within the <br />20-foot right-of--way, and in suclr circumstances there :may not <br />