I It is undisputed that Lombard Street has a 16-foot paved width, but is not <br />2 developed to city standards, at least with respect to width. Petitioners contend <br />3 that the road surface is "experiencing pavement distress." Petition for Review 40 <br />4 (quoting Record 296). Lombard concedes that the street is generally "substandard <br />5 but not unimproved." Lombard's Response Brief 26. Petitioners argue that <br />6 Lombard should be required to install a temporary barrier, such as removable <br />7 bollards, at the entrance of Lombard Street at the property's southern boundary. <br />8 The city decided that a temporary barrier was not required because <br />9 Lombard Street does not have an "inadequate driving surface." Record 28. The <br />10 planning commission relied on city public works engineering staff's opinion that <br />11 the road surface is adequate and that, in context of the proposed development, <br />12 "`inadequate' would equate to nearly impassible or dangerous conditions." <br />13 Record 28. <br />14 Petitioners argue that the city misconstrued EC 9.6815(2)(f) by failing to <br />15 address the road rating and anticipated traffic volume and, further, that there is <br />16 no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the existing paved driving <br />17 surface is adequate. Lombard responds that EC 9.6815(2)(f) delegates to the <br />18 public works department the determination of whether a particular street is <br />19 "adequate." The city responds that, because the public works director did not <br />20 determine that the driving surface was inadequate, the public works director was <br />21 not required to consider the street rating and anticipated traffic volume. The city <br />22 further responds that the public works department correctly determined that <br />Page 24 <br />