• The City cannot continue to clap its hands over its eyes and attempt to pick-and-choose <br />where it will apply the evidence provided by its own traffic engineering staffs technical <br />analysis. Accordingly, the Planning Commission must explain how its decision resolves the <br />three statements above and how its decision is based on reliable evidence in the record. <br />As the Supreme Court noted some time ago: <br />"We wish to make it clear that by insisting on adequate findings of fact we are not <br />simply imposing legalistic notions of proper form, or setting an empty exercise for local <br />governments to follow. No particular form is required, and no magic words need be <br />employed. What is needed for adequate judicial review is a clear statement of what, <br />specifically, the decision making body believes, after hearing and considering all the <br />evidence, to be the relevant and important facts upon which its decision is based. <br />Conclusions are not sufficient." Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or 3, <br />21, 569 P2d 1063 (1977); see also Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 157, 957 P2d 1210 <br />(1998). (Emphasis added) <br />The Oregon Court of Appeals has also made clear that local governments must specifically <br />articulate their findings' and explain how the evidence factored into their decisions. 1000 Fiends <br />of Oregon v. Metro, 174 Or App 406, 410, 26 Pad 151 (2001). Neither the Hearings Official nor the <br />Planning Commission provided the required explanations in their previous decisions, choosing <br />instead to accept staffs false claim that the analysis under EC 9.8320(5) had no relationship to <br />the PUD's projected traffic impacts. <br />The Second Elephant in the Room - Oakleigh Lane Does Not Have a Public 19-Foot Wide <br />Pavement. <br />The Hearings Official and Planning Commission decisions relied most heavily on the Public <br />Works Report's findings under EC 9.8320(11)(b), which stated a conditional finding that a <br />19-foot wide paving width would be safe - but only if were ensured that Oakleigh Lane wasn't <br />obstructed by parked vehicles. <br />As it turns out, an extensive segment of the Oakleigh Lane right-of-way doesn't actually <br />contain a 19-foot wide pavement, and the Public Works Report conclusion that Oakleigh Lane <br />would be safe in its current configuration didn't take that deficiency into account.' <br />The complete excerpt from the Public Works Report is provided above, but the salient text is: <br />"Oakleigh Lane has an approximate 19 foot wide paved surface, the existing paved <br />surface in Oakleigh Street will continue to adequately provide for motorized and foot <br />traffic, as well as for emergency vehicles and delivery services, provided the paved <br />surface is not blocked by parked vehicles. Since the existing paved surface provides safe <br />passage for two-way vehicular traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles, and <br />since there is nothing to suggest that the impacts of the proposed development will <br />5 The inadequate paving width and the erroneous finding that Oakleigh Lane was safe and adequate, based on a 19-foot paving <br />width, were raised under the Appeal Statements Second, Third, Fourth and Tenth Assignments of Error. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 8 July 27, 2015 <br />200 <br />