In particular, EC 9.6805 states: <br />"EC 9.6805 Dedication of Public Ways. As a condition of any development, the city may <br />require dedication of public ways for bicycle and/or pedestrian use as well as for streets and <br />alleys, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with constitutional <br />requirements. Public ways for pedestrian and bicycle accessways, streets-and alleys to be <br />dedicated to the public by the applicant shall conform with the adopted Street Right of way <br />Map, and EC Table 9.6870." <br />While the second sentence addresses "streets dedicated to the public by the applicant," the <br />first sentence contains no such qualification. As-described above, LUBA has made perfectly clear <br />that the City can require dedication of adequate right-of-way for the entire length of Oakleigh <br />Lane as a condition of development, even though the City may not be allowed to require that the <br />applicant provide dedications beyond their own property. <br />In addition to erroneously limiting the scope, the Hearings Official neglected entirely to provide <br />the required analysis and findings with respect to emergency response vehicles, and thus the . <br />Decision failed to ensure approval of the PUD would "protect and promote" the health and safety <br />of the general public, including current residents on Oakleigh Lane, as well as the additional <br />residents of the 29-unit PUD at the end of the road. <br />By limiting the evaluation solely to a 50-foot dedication along the development site, the Decision <br />clearly did not demonstrate that the result of the applicant's proposal and the added conditions <br />of approval would satisfy the requirement of EC 9.8320(5) that the PUD provide safe and <br />adequate transportation systems for its PUD residents, as well as residents that would be <br />impacted bythe development's additional traffic. <br />-Commissioners should be aware that the City has not always complied in this regard on past <br />decisions, but the LUBA decision in Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham, and the only <br />reasonable reading of-the relevant city code, require that any approval of this PUD ensure- <br />Oakleigh Lane is safe for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. <br />This requirement is directly supported by Metro Plan Policy F.26, which requires the City to: <br />"Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is <br />designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking." (Metro Plan at III-F-9) <br />In another error, the Hearings Official failed entirely to consider and evaluate this plan policy, <br />despite its direct relevance to the proposed PUD's impacts. <br />The closely related standard in EC 9.6820(4) also provides compelling context as to the Council's <br />intent for long, dead-end roads, such as Oakleigh Lane. This provision requires: <br />"Public accessways to provide safe circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency <br />vehicles shall be required from a cul-de-sac or emergency vehicle turnaround longer than 150' <br />in length when measured from the centerline of the intersecting street to the radius point of <br />the cul-de-sac or to the center point of the emergency vehicle turnaround." <br />Conte Testimony - December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 9 <br />265. <br />