Whether or not this is "feasible," how that might be accomplished, and what <br />exactions can be required of the applicant are entirely separate issues from <br />the engineering and safety issues. Either all of Oakleigh Lane needs <br />comparable right-of-way width and improvements as those being exacted <br />from the applicant alongside the development site, or it isn't necessary to <br />require the right-of-way and improvements adjacent to the site. There is <br />nothing in the record that suggests there is something special about the short <br />stretch alongside the development site that makes that section - and only that <br />section - the only place widening and improvements are necessary to provide <br />for safe, convenient and comfortable accommodation of all forms of traffic. <br />See Conte 10/16. Item #6, pages 5 to 9 for LUBA's handling of this issue. <br />The specific places where the Hearings Official erred in this analysis include, <br />but are not limited to, the following. <br />Decision at 244 <br />The Hearings Official reduces the EC 9.8320(5) requirement to "provide[] safe <br />and adequate transportation" to just the dedication of right-of-way <br />immediately adjacent to the development site. But, as explained above, that <br />dedication is not sufficient to "provide[] safe and adequate transportation." <br />As LUBA covered in Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham (Conte 10/16, page <br />5), adequate right-of-way and improvements must be feasible and sufficient, <br />even if the applicant himself is not required to actually implement all the <br />acquisition and construction that's necessary. <br />"Based on the above interpretation of EC 9.8320(5)(a), the opponents arguments as set <br />forth above are not relevant to whether the applicant has met the requirement to <br />dedicate sufficient land to create a 45 foot right-of-way along Oakleigh Lane. <br />Although eloquently argued, Mr. Conte's substantial analysis of the Staff findings are <br />well outside the scope of EC 9.8320(5)(a), EC 9.6805 and EC 9.6870.Oakleigh Lane <br />need not have a dedicated 45 foot right-of-way and associated paved surface from <br />River Road to the subject property in order to meet EC 9.8320(5(a) because that <br />provision is a standard for the "dedication" of land, not a "service" standard akin to <br />level of service - LOS." <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 19 November 22, 2013 <br />