25 <br />"In a portion of his first assignment of error, we also understand <br />Conte to argue that the planning commission's conclusion that <br />Oakleigh Lane is presently safe and will be safe after the PUD <br />is built is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. <br />ORS197.835(9)(a)(C). The hearings officer and planning <br />commission relied on the evidence in the record, including <br />evidence from Meadows and from the city's public works staff, <br />that Oakleigh Lane will provide safe and adequate <br />transportation with the additional trips generated by the PUD. <br />Record 9, 372, 1255-76. * * * <br />Conte reads the evidence supplied by the city's public works <br />staff differently that the planning commission did. Conte <br />argues that the city's public works staff took the position that <br />the entirety of Oakleigh Lane must have a 45-foot wide right of <br />way in order to be safe. Conte Petition for Review 29, 37-39. <br />Respondents respond that the public works comments that <br />Conte relies on in support of his argument do not say what he <br />argues they say." <br />We have reviewed the public works staff comments on the <br />proposed PUD at Record 1255-76 and 1268-69 and we think <br />that the planning commission and respondents' description and <br />understanding of the comments and the evidence provided in <br />them regarding whether the PUD satisfies the applicable criteria <br />is the accurate one. It is also evidence that a reasonable person <br />would rely on in reaching a decision. City of Portland v. <br />Bureau of Labor and Industries, 298 Or 104, 119, 690 P2d 475 <br />(1984). <br />Conte concedes `[a]lthough the [public works staff] findings <br />do not state explicitly that Oakleigh Lane would be unsafe after <br />the PUD is developed unless all or most of Oakleigh Lane is <br />also widened from the development site to River Road, such a <br />statement is unnecessary for Conte's argument since no other <br />reasonable conclusion can be. drawn from the [public works <br />staff findings. * * Conte Petition for Review 39." <br />Rec. 35-6. ER 33-34. Intervenors-Petitioners do not acknowledge these <br />findings, or assign error to LUBA's determination that that substantial evidence <br />