Specifically, the report contains statements under three different sections: <br />Under subsection (a) of EC 9.8320(5), the report provided its most extensive analysis and <br />found that the EC 9.8320(5) requirement that the PUD provide a "safe and adequate <br />transportation system" could not be met unless Oakleigh Lane had a 45-foot right-of- <br />way: <br />"Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the <br />City's minimum street design standards' and the 168 new vehicle trips per day <br />generated by the proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and <br />bicycle traffic generated by the proposed development; will not be assured of safe <br />access via Oakleigh Lane." PH-30 at 3. (Emphasis added.) <br />Under subsection (c) of EC 9.83200, the report presented an inconsistent, conclusory <br />statement, without any supporting analysis, as the basis for not requiring a Traffic Impact <br />Analysis: <br />"Further, staff has no concerns related to traffic safety issues or poor service levels <br />which will result from this development." PH-30 at 11. <br />And finally, under subsection (b) of EC 9.8320(11), the report stated a conditional <br />finding that a 19-foot wide paving width would be safe - but only if it were ensured that <br />the paving wasn't obstructed by parked vehicles: <br />"Oakleigh Lane has an approximate 19 foot wide paved surface, but has not been <br />improved to city standards, lacking curbs and gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks, <br />and street trees. As is typical for unimproved local streets in the River Road area, i.e., <br />those streets which do not have paving, curb & gutter and sidewalks or which have <br />not been striped to identify dedicated travel lanes; the expectation is that pedestrians <br />and bicyclists will share the paved surface with vehicles. Additionally, there is a <br />tendency on dead end streets such as Oakleigh for motorists to travel at slower, <br />more cautious speeds, because of the perceived narrowness of the street. Until such <br />time that property owners elect to improve Oakleigh Lane to full City standards, <br />including sidewalks, the existing paved surface in Oakleigh Street will continue to <br />adequately provide for motorized and foot traffic, as well as for emergency vehicles <br />and delivery services, provided the paved surface is not blocked by parked vehicles. <br />Since the existing 12aved surface provides safe passage for two-way vehicular traffic, <br />bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles, and since there is nothing to suggest <br />that the impacts of the proposed development will result in unsafe conditions in <br />The Hearings Official cannot rely on mere conclusory statements, even by experts, when opponents have offered a detailed <br />explanation, consistent with City traffic engineering staff's specific analysis, for why Oakleigh Lane would not be able to safely <br />and efficiently accommodate the increased traffic under its current configuration and conditions. <br />"While the hearing official is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of the county sanitarian, where opponents have offered <br />a detailed explanation for why the subject property may not be able to accommodate the required expansion and <br />replacement drainfield, we agree that more than an unexplained expression of belief that it will be possible is required. <br />Bartels v. City of Portland, 20 Or LUBA 303,308 (1990)." See also Phillips v. Lane County, 62 Or LUBA 92 (2010). <br />~71 <br />• <br />3 The City's minimum street standards require at least a 45-foot right-of-way. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 5 <br />July 27, 2015 <br />197 <br />