Official's findings that relied directly or implicitly on this analysis must be rejected because the <br />analysis didn't consider the consequences of six feet of the paving being on private property <br />outside the public right-of-way. <br />The Gnat in the Room - The Conclusory Statement under EC 9.8320(5)(c) Isn't Adequate <br />Evidence <br />The only other finding in the Public Works Report that the Hearings Official and Planning <br />Commission decisions relied on for their findings that Oakleigh Lane would be safe and <br />adequate in its current condition was the following under EC 9.8320(5)(c): <br />"Further, staff has no concerns related to traffic safety issues or poor service levels which <br />will result from this development." PH-30 at 11. <br />There is no accompanying analysis, and as the Oregon Supreme Court made clear - <br />"Conclusions are not sufficient." LUBA has also emphasized in Phillips v. Lane County that <br />conclusory statements, even by experts, are not sufficient for findings. <br />Even if one allows (and I don't) that this conclusion is based on the report's analysis <br />under EC 9.8320(11)(b), that analysis is a) based on a flawed assumption regarding Oakleigh <br />Lane's paving width, and b) is conditional on Oakleigh Lane not being obstructed by parked <br />vehicles. A conclusion by staff that they "have no concerns" is glaringly inconsistent with the <br />concern expressed about parked cars obstructing Oakleigh Lane. <br />In sum, the Public Works Report statement under EC 9.8320(5)(c) has no evidentiary <br />value at all, and to rely on this statement would invite another remand. <br />Reality-Check - Findings That Are Based on Reliable Evidence in the Record. <br />The only reliable evidence in the record regarding the safety and adequacy of Oakleigh Lane is <br />the thorough analysis that the city's own experts did regarding compliance with EC 9.8320(5). <br />The Planning Commission should keep in mind that when the evidence in the record is <br />conflicting and the contrary evidence so undermines the evidence relied upon by the local <br />decision maker that it is unreasonable for the decision maker to rely upon it, LUBA will reverse <br />or remand the decision. Consequently, the Planning Commission should expect another <br />remand if it relies on the Public Works Report flawed conclusions under EC 9.8320(11)(b) and <br />EC 9.8320(5)(c) over the thorough analysis under EC 9.8320(5)(a). <br />• <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 - Page 11 <br />July 27, 2015 <br />203 <br />