interpretations of the law - not the contortions that have been attempted in order to win <br />approval of this flawed application by any means possible. <br />In conclusion on this error, the Hearings Official (and Planning Commission) simply <br />allowed, with no germane or legally-sufficient findings, a portion of the Oakleigh Lane right-of- <br />way to remain two-and-a-half feet narrower than the minimum width the City's own findings <br />said was essential for safe usage by the PUD's residents. <br />That error must be corrected by adding a sufficient condition of approval, keeping in <br />mind that the Court of Appeals has made clear they will reverse a decision "when there is no <br />evidence to support the finding or if the evidence in the case 'so at odds with LUBA's <br />evaluation that a reviewing court could infer that LUBA had misapplied or misunderstood its <br />scope of review.' Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 359, 752 P2d 262 (1988)." Citizens for <br />responsibility v. Lane County, 218 Or App 339, 345,180 P3d 35 (2008). In this case, the City's <br />technical staff's analysis concluded that a 45-foot right-of-way was required along the front of <br />the subject property for compliance with EC 9.8320(5) and there is no reliable evidence that <br />addresses the right-of-way on that segment and concludes that a 42.5-foot right-of-way would <br />be sufficient. Consequently, the decision requires at least a condition of approval that will <br />ensure a 45-foot right-of-way. <br />The Hearings Official erred in failing to require a sufficient right- <br />away for Oakleigh Lane from River Road to the subject property <br />in order to comply with EC 9.8320(5) and EC 9.8320(5)(x)14 <br />Before I get to the legal issues, let me revisit the wastewater system analogy. Consider the <br />hypothetical case in which the Public Works Department were to determine that conveyance of <br />the wastewater volume that would be generated by a proposed PUD would require a <br />wastewater pipe that's twenty inches in diameter to be transported safely and adequately to the <br />PUD property line where it would connect with an existing wastewater pipe. If that existing <br />pipe were only ten inches in diameter, and it already served twenty households, would it be <br />reasonable to approve the PUD with no condition other than to provide the twenty-inch pipe on <br />the development site? Obviously not, because the health and safety of the PUD and nearby <br />residents would be put at risk by the inadequacy of the downstream pipe. <br />As discussed above, the City couldn't require the PUD applicant to shoulder a <br />disproportionate burden of the cost to replace the existing pipe with a larger one that could <br />handle the projected volume of wastewater. However, the City also couldn't legally approve the <br />PUD unless an adequate and safe wastewater conveyance facility downstream was in some way <br />ensured, such as through an adequate condition of approval. <br />Many transportation systems have street configurations that are more complex than this <br />simple wastewater pipe analogy, but that's not the case with Oakleigh Lane. The transportation <br />system that must adequately and safely serve the proposed PUD residents is a single street with <br />no intersections for its entire length (other than at the end where it meets River Road). This one <br />14 This error was raised under the Appeal Statement's Second and Third Assignments of Error. 0 <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 17 <br />July 27, 2015 <br />209 <br />