Summary of Testimony <br />® The Public Works report contains three statements that the Hearings Official and <br />Planning Commission relied upon for findings regarding whether Oakleigh Lane in its <br />current condition would be safe and adequate and meet the approval criteria in <br />EC 9.8320(5), (6) and (11). These statements are inconsistent, and the Hearings Official <br />neglected to adequately and properly explain how these inconsistencies were resolved, <br />as required by the Oregon Supreme Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals. <br />® Approximately 6 feet of the paving on the 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane <br />immediately to the west of the subject property lies outside the 20-foot public right-of- <br />way and on private property. The Public Works Report, on which the Hearings Official <br />relied, assumed a 19-foot wide, unobstructed pavement as the basis for the report's <br />conclusion that Oakleigh Lane's existing pavement was adequate and safe. <br />The Hearings Official's findings did not explain how the decision would ensure that the <br />entire 19-foot pavement width would remain available for public use and that cars <br />wouldn't be legally parked on the pavement on private property and thus obstruct the <br />pavement. Accordingly, all conclusions regarding the safety and adequacy of Oakleigh <br />Lane that are based on a "19-foot pavement width" are not valid and cannot be relied <br />upon. <br />® The only technical analysis in the record that actually dealt with the right-of-way width <br />adjacent to the subject property concluded that a 45-foot right-of-way was necessary for <br />the public safety and compliance with the approval criterion EC 9.8320(5)(a). The <br />decision, however, ensures only a 42.5-foot wide right-of-way. The Nolan/Dolan <br />limitations apply to exactions, but not to an approval criteria that requires an adequate <br />right-of-way for the public safety. A condition that ensures a 45-foot right-of-way <br />adjacent to the subject property must be added in order to approve the application. <br />® The Hearings Official misinterpreted and misapplied the approval criterion at <br />EC 9.8320(5). This criterion must be interpreted in a way that ensures the PUD provides <br />safe and adequate transportation systems for its residents, and the "traffic system" must <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 2 July 27, 2015 <br />