inadequate finding was when commissioners signed off on the following finding that staff <br />wrote: <br />"There is no evidence submitted by the opponents that outweighs or contradicts this <br />expert testimony." - Revised Final Order, page 7 <br />This statement was not supported by any discussion of the City's adopted street standards <br />(which clearly stated a queuing street required a paving width of at least 21 feet - not 14 feet), <br />the land use code's street standards (with a minimum paving width of 20 feet), the EFC, OFC <br />and IFC standards, the ODOT Guide, the OSHA standards and the substantial explanations <br />found in these authoritative documents of the functional requirements for fire and other <br />emergency vehicle "clear access." <br />All of this substantial evidence - from indisputably reliable institutions - "contradicted" <br />the demonstrably inaccurate and unreliable comments from Weishar that was the only evidence <br />commissioners relied upon for their finding with respect to EC 9.8020(6). Adequate findings this <br />time around must actually consider the relevance of all these consistent standards to the issue of <br />OL's safety and adequacy. (And, as a reminder, the issue is not that the EC 9.8320(6) approval <br />criterion explicitly requires that Oakleigh Lane meet these standards. The issue is that these <br />standard all agree the for safe, unimpeded emergency access, a roadway must be at least 20 feet <br />wide and not obstructed.) <br />Expert testimony <br />Testimony from experts can be valuable in adopting "adequate findings" - as long as the <br />testimony if reliable. Conclusory statements by an "expert," without sufficient facts and <br />explanation to support the conclusions do not carry the weight of legitimate "expert testimony." <br />In addition, when an expert's testimony is shown to be erroneous or unreasonable, the Planning <br />Commission cannot rely upon it just because it came from a person with credentials. <br />The letter from Weishar is an example of unreliable testimony that should never have <br />been relied upon. As explained in previous testimony, Weishar misrepresented how the City's <br />street classification system works; he falsely claimed Oakleigh Lane could function as a reliable <br />"queuing street"; and he made the ridiculous statement that a fire truck would just back down <br />the street if it encountered "excessive parking." (See Simon Trautman 's September 4, 2015 <br />testimony, pages 4-11.) <br />Looking at more recent testimony, here is the "headnote" for a LUBA opinion that hits <br />right on the cursory and inaccurate comments provided by Scott Gillespie and Mark Dahl: <br />"Although a hearing official is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of a county <br />sanitarian that a required septic drain-field expansion is feasible, where opponents offer <br />a detailed explanation for why the subject property may not be able to accommodate the <br />required expansion and replacement drain-field, the county sanitarian must supply <br />more than an unexplained expression of belief that the needed expansion is feasible." <br />Phillips v. Lane County, 62 Or LUBA 92 (2010). <br />Conte Appeal Testimony - Legal Instructions PDT 13-1 Page 6 April 19, 2017 <br />