Commissioners should read this paragraph closely because it is at the heart of many of the <br />Hearings Official's errors regarding the specific approval criteria for which. the irnpacts of traffic <br />are critical. = <br />Note first that the Hearings Official never disputes, here or elsewhere in the Decision, the <br />validity of the PWD staff's findings that Oakleigh Lane will be unsafe in its current <br />configuration. <br />Taken in its entirety, his statement does nothing more than observe what is not disputed: These <br />PWD staff findings were presented as the justification for requiring the right-of-way dedication, <br />and the staff used these findings (only) to require sufficient right-of-way along the subject - <br />property's frontage. Although the PWD findings are sufficient for those purposes, there is no <br />evidence or argument in the staff report or the Hearings Official's findings that the two <br />conditions of approval, which are limited to the fifty feet along the development site, are <br />adequate to ensure Oakleigh Lane will be safe once the 29 dwellings are built. <br />It is inarguable that, if Oakleigh Lane would be unsafe without the conditions imposed on the <br />final fifty feet of this 1,000 foot, narrow; substandard, dead-end road, then Oakleigh Lane <br />would remain unsafe unless the right-of-way is widened and improvements made for all, or at <br />least most, of the rest of Oakleigh Lane out to River Road. No reasonable person could conclude <br />otherwise, based on the evidence in. the record, most particularly the uncontested analysis by <br />the City's professional traffic engineers. <br />The only other possibility that would support the Hearings Official's ignoring the PWD findings <br />would be some legal obstacle to imposing adequate conditions. The Hearings Official didn't cite <br />any such legal basis, and there is none. In fact, as explained in more detail below, LUBAs has laid <br />out whatthe City can and can't do, which in this case boils down to two legal principles: <br />1. The City can require that before development can occur, there, must be sufficient right- <br />of-way dedications and improvements to bring all of Oakleigh Lane up to the appropriate <br />City standards; and <br />2. The City cannot require.thatthe applicants themselves acquire the necessary dedications <br />or payfor improvements beyond the proportional burden that can be justified. <br />The Hearings Official (as well as Planning Division staff) appears to have misunderstood that the <br />constitutional limits on exactions do not necessarily place the same limits on. conditions of <br />approval that require sufficient right-of-way and improvements to ensure safety before <br />development can occur. <br />Commissioners should make sure that they have a solid grasp on the principles that LUBA laid <br />down before making a decision in this case. <br />4 The PWD findings stated this conclusion very clearly, and with no qualifications. The'PWD staff analysis didn't <br />just "concede" the risks to bicyclists and pedestrians, as the Hearings Official states. <br />s Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham, 52 Or LUBA 550 (2006), LUBA. <br />Conte Testimony - December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 3 <br />259 <br />