41 <br />clearly inconsistent with the extensive findings that were adopted to support <br />2 exaction. These PWD statements are addressed specifically under other <br />3 sections in this petition; but in general, the City cannot rely on selected <br />4 excerpts from their own analysis that are inconsistent with the more substantial <br />5 findings the City relied upon for exaction.7 <br />6 The City conflated approval criteria and exaction <br />7 The Hearings Official and EPC mistakenly conflated the approval criteria's <br />8 various requirements for an adequate and safe street with the constitutional <br />9 limits on exactions. While the City was correct that it could not exact more than <br />10 a proportional share of right-of-way dedications and street improvements, the <br />11 City can - and was required to - ensure the PUD would be served by a safe and <br />LUBA has previously recognized limits on the City's reliance on statements by <br />staff that are conclusory and inconsistent with substantial conflicting evidence: <br />"While the hearing official is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of the <br />county sanitarian, where opponents have offered a detailed explanation for <br />why the subject property may not be able to accommodate the required <br />expansion and replacement drain-field, we agree that more than an unex- <br />plained expression of belief that it will be possible is required. Bartels v. City <br />of Portland, 20 Or LUBA 303, 308 (1990). There may well be adequate <br />responses to all of the concerns expressed about the property's ability to <br />accommodate the required drain-field expansion and any required replacement <br />drain-field. But those responses are not present in the hearing official's <br />decision or in any evidence in the record that has been brought to our atten- <br />tion. Remand is required so that the hearing official may explain why those <br />concerns are not well taken." Phillips v. Lane County, 62 Or. LUBA 92 (2010) <br />