However, if the commissioners are determined to approve the application despite these serious <br />deficiencies, to be reasonable and legally-defensible such a decision would require that: <br />a. The Planning Commission must adopt findings that, as a matter of law, it is feasible to <br />widen and improve Oakleigh Lane so that it meets the three approval criteria, above; <br />and <br />b. The Planning Commission must adopt condition(s) of approval that, before the Final <br />PUD is approved, Oakleigh Lane be widened and improved to the specific width and <br />improvements that would satisfy all of the three approval criteria, above. <br />My argument is not that it is infeasible, as a matter of law, for Oakleigh Lane to be widened and <br />improved, as required. That is not the issue here. <br />And, as explained in my prior testimony, my argument is not that the City must require the <br />applicant to actually provide the right-of-way and improvements beyond their proportional <br />obligation. <br />My argument is that the required right-of-way and pavement width must be feasible and the <br />conditions of approval must be adequate to ensure they will be put in place <br />However, it should be clear that, even if the Planning Commission were to rely on the same <br />statements in the Public Works report and the same findings of compliance, based on a 20-foot <br />unobstructed right-of-way and 19-foot-wide pavement on public property, there was not <br />reliable evidence in the record approved by the Hearings Official that addressed the true <br />conditions of Oakleigh Lane. <br />AN ALTERNATIVE SAFETY ANALYSIS REQUIRES A COMPLETE "REDO" <br />It was the applicant's responsibility to present an application that included the true facts <br />regarding Oakleigh Lane and an analysis of compliance with EC 9.8320(5), (6) and (11) based on <br />an accurate description of Oakleigh Lane. The applicant did not do that, whether by intent or <br />lack of due-diligence, and the applicant cannot at this late hour change the fundamental <br />elements of their application with respect to the physical environment and do a wholly new <br />analysis, based on facts that are substantially different than were presented in the application. <br />Accordingly, the Planning Commission should take care not to rely on any new traffic safety <br />analysis submitted by a consultant representing the applicant's interests, and which the public <br />would have no opportunity to review or address with contrary evidence or raise additional <br />appeal issues. An entirely new analysis would only be permissible through submittal of a new <br />Tentative PUD application that would be subjected to the full public process for approval. <br />Pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(c), ORS 197.763(7) and other applicable statutory <br />requirements, I am hereby requesting, in writing, that I (and others) be allowed to submit <br />evidence in response to any new traffic safety analysis submitted by the applicant or city staff. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 5 August 31, 2015 <br />30 <br />