ER-34 <br />1 29, 37-39. Respondents respond that the public works comments that Conte <br />S <br />2 relies on in support of his argument do not say what he argues they say." <br />3 We have reviewed the public works staff comments on the proposed <br />4 PUD at Record 1255-76 and 1268-69 and we think the planning commission <br />5 and respondents' description and understanding of the comments and the <br />6 evidence provided in them regarding whether the PUD satisfies the applicable <br />7 criteria is the accurate one. It is also evidence that a reasonable person would <br />8 rely on in reaching a decision. City of Portland v. Bureau of Labor and <br />9 Industries, 298 Or 104, 119, 690 P2d 475 (1984). <br />10 We also understand Conte to argue that the city improperly construed EC <br />11 9.8320(6) because it failed to. consider whether the ".configuration of Oakleigh <br />12 Lane" will be "a significant risk to public health and safety or be an <br />13 impediment to emergency response." Conte Petition for.Review 34. Meadows <br />14 responds that Conte's argument misconstrues the plain language of EC <br />15 9.8320(6) and impermissibly adds language to it. Meadows points out that EC <br />16 9.8320(6) requires the city to determine whether "the PUD" is an impediment <br />17 to emergency response, not whether "the configuration of Oakleigh Lane" or <br />18 all off-site streets would be an impediment. Meadows also points to the city's <br />19 findings that the PUD will not be a "significant risk to public * * safety <br />20 or an impediment to emergency response" based on the future possible <br />21 hammerhead turnaround and the. condition of approval requiring a temporary <br />11 Conte concedes "[a]lthough the [public works staff] findings do not state <br />explicitly that Oakleigh Lane would be unsafe after the PUD is developed <br />unless all or most of Oakleigh Lane is also widened from the development site <br />to River Road, such a statement is unnecessary for Conte's argument since no <br />other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the [public works staf#] <br />findings. * * Conte Petition for Review 39. <br />Page 34 <br />000083 <br />