37 <br />"We wish to make it clear that by insisting on adequate findings of <br />fact we are not simply imposing legalistic notions of proper form, <br />or setting an empty exercise for local governments to follow. No <br />particular form is required, and no magic words need be employed. <br />What is needed for adequate judicial review is a clear statement of <br />what, specifically, the decision-making body believes, after <br />hearing and considering all the evidence, to be the relevant and <br />important facts upon which its decision is based. Conclusions are <br />not sufficient." <br />Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or 3, 21, 569 P2d 1063 <br />(1977); see also Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 157, 957 P2d 1210 <br />(1998). <br />3. Argument. <br />EC 9.8320(5) requires the Applicant to provide safe and adequate <br />transportation systems for its proposed PUD. One component of the <br />transportation systems compliance with EC 9.8320(5)(a) is compliance with <br />subsection (a), requiring the applicant to meet the standards in EC 9.6875, <br />which sets the "standards for streets, alleys and other public ways." All parties <br />have acknowledged that, under EC 9.6875, the minimum right-of-way for the <br />street to be constructed adjacent to the proposed PUD is 45 feet. As discussed <br />at length above, the only significant evidence in the record regarding the safety <br />of Oakleigh Lane adjacent to the proposed PUD came from the EPWD Report <br />at Record pp 1256-7. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />