42 <br />adequate street. These are separate actions, and the City cannot waive <br />2 conformance with approval criteria ensuring public safety just because it <br />3 cannot exact from the applicant all that would be necessary to meet the criteria. <br />4 LUBA dealt with the distinction between these two aspects of adequate <br />5 street access in In Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham, supra. Butte <br />6 Conservancy addressed the petitioner's argument that City of Gresham was <br />7 required to deny the applicant's development proposal because the applicant <br />8 could never secure from other property owners (who opposed the development) <br />9 the right-of-way necessary to meet Gresham's street access requirements. <br />10 LUBA held that City of Gresham could require adequate right-of-way to <br />11 meet the street access approval criterion through conditions of approval, and <br />12 then could approve the application, based on those conditions of approval - <br />13 even if the only likely means the developer had to acquire the right-of-way was <br />14 by persuading the City to condemn portions of the other property owners' land. <br />15 LUBA summarized what would be sufficient, in the present case, for the <br />16 City of Eugene to approve the Oakleigh PUD: <br />17 "In our view, it is sufficient for the local government in such circumstances <br />18 to (1) adopt findings that establish that fulfillment of the condition of <br />19 approval is not precluded as a matter of law, and (2) ensure, in imposing the <br />20 condition of approval, that the condition will be fulfilled prior to final <br />21 development approvals or actual development." (Emphasis added.) <br />22 Conte does not argue that achieving the necessary right-of-way is precluded as <br />