ER-33 <br />1 "Public Works staff states that the existing paved surface provides <br />2 safe passage for two-way vehicular traffic, bicycles, pedestrians <br />3 and emergency vehicles. As such, Public Works staff indicates <br />4 that there is nothing to suggest that the impacts of the proposed <br />5 development will result in unsafe conditions in Oakleigh Lane." <br />6 Record 372. <br />7 The planning commission also found that Oakleigh Lane from River Road to <br />8 the subject property is presently safe and will be safe if the PUD is approved. <br />9 Record 9. <br />10 In a portion of his first assignment of error, we also understand Conte to <br />11 argue that the planning commission's conclusion that Oakleigh Lane is <br />12 presently safe and will be safe after the PUD is built is not supported by <br />13 substantial evidence in the record. ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C). The hearings <br />14 officer and planning commission relied on the evidence in the record, including <br />15 evidence from Meadows and from the city's public works staff, that Oakleigh <br />16 Lane will provide safe and adequate transportation with the additional vehicle <br />17 trips generated by the PUD. Record 9, 372, 1255-76. The planning <br />18 commission understood the public works staff comments regarding the need for <br />19 a 45-foot right of way for Oakleigh Lane to be limited to the portion of <br />20 Oakleigh Lane within the proposed PUD and to address constitutional <br />21 requirements for exacting a portion of Meadows' property for widening of <br />22 .Oakleigh Lane on the subject property, and found that the comments do not <br />23 provide evidence that Oakleigh Lane in its entirety is unsafe. Record 9-10, 15. <br />24 Conte reads the evidence supplied by the city's public works staff <br />25 differently than the planning commission did. Conte argues that the city's <br />26 public works staff took the position that the entirety of Oakleigh Lane must <br />27 have a 45-foot wide right of way in order to be safe. Conte Petition for Review <br />Page 33 <br />000082 <br />