I Lombard Street does not have an "inadequate driving surface," because no <br />2 evidence in the record indicates that the driving surface is impassable. <br />3 We agree with Lombard and the city that EC 9.6815(2)(f) delegates to the <br />4 public works director the responsibility to determine whether a street is <br />5 inadequate. It is undisputed that Lombard Street is paved and passable. Contrary <br />6 to the city's argument, EC 9.6815(2)(f) specifically requires the public works <br />7 director to consider the street rating and anticipated traffic volume. However, we <br />8 agree with Lombard that EC 9.6815(2)(f) does not require specific findings or <br />9 analysis from the public works director or the city. Implicit in the engineer's <br />10 assessment of the adequacy of the driving surface is the engineer's conclusion <br />11 that anticipated traffic volume can be accommodated by a road surface that does <br />12 not meet city standards for width and surface condition. That assessment included <br />13 consideration of the residential use of the subject property and the characteristics <br />14 of Lombard Street, which is a relatively short street within a residential area. <br />15 To be sure, the public works determination in this case could have been <br />16 more detailed and explained the specific street rating and anticipated traffic <br />17 volume. Nevertheless, the city did not misconstrue EC 9.6815(2)(f) by accepting <br />18 the public works department's determination that "inadequate," in context of this <br />19 development, means impassable and that, because Lombard Street is paved and <br />20 passable-facts that are undisputed-Lombard Street does not have "an <br />21 inadequate driving surface." <br />Page 25 <br />