33 <br />(c) LUBA's Errors. <br />As discussed above, LUBA fundamentally misinterpreted EC 9.8320(5) <br />and (6) and that misinterpretation led to several additional errors. <br />For example, on page 32 of its opinion, LUBA acknowledges that EC <br />9.8320(5)(b) applies to land outside the boundaries of the PUD, including <br />potentially the existing Oakleigh Lane, but says that the City found the existing <br />Oakleigh Lane to be safe. In the first instance, as noted in footnote 10 above, <br />the EPWD never analyzed subsection (5)(b) at all. Even if the report's <br />comments under an entirely different criterion'0 could support a finding related <br />to EC 9.8320(5)(b), the comments by the EPWD contained a critical caveat that <br />the street would not be safe if cars were allowed to be parked on the paved <br />surface of the street. <br />More importantly, LUBA mischaracterized the argument that was made. <br />LUBA says "Conte is simply mistaken when he argues that the city failed to <br />consider off-site circulation and connectivity for pedestrians and bicycles along <br />the entirety of Oakleigh Lane." ER p 32. Conte actually argued that the <br />conflict between the safety analysis of (1) the adjacent portion of Oakleigh <br />" The quoted portion of the Public Works Department Report was actually <br />analyzing EC 9.6505(3). Rec p 1268. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />