of-way and improved to Low Volume Residential Street standards in order to <br />handle projected traffic in a safe and efficient manner. The only thing that the <br />material in the two letters suggests is that the existing right-of-way may be a bit <br />wider, but still not 45 feet, at some locations on Oakleigh Lane. Nothing presented in <br />these letters would change the analysis and conclusions presented in my October 9 <br />testimony or the arguments herein, particularly in section (6) that follows. <br />6. With respect to the conditions of approval related to traffic impacts that are <br />proposed in the Staff Report (i.e., conditions 3, 4, 5 and 7), LUBA has provided clear <br />direction on how the Hearings Official must evaluate this case. <br />In Butte Conservancy v, City of Gresham, 52 Or LUBA 550 (2006), LUBA explained: <br />"[I]n a line of cases based on Meyer v. City of Portland, 67 Or App 274, 678 P2d 741 <br />(1984) and Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442 (1992), the Court and <br />LUBA have held that, in a two-stage approval process such as subdivision <br />approval, where a problem is identified that raises concerns whether proposed <br />development can comply with applicable approval criteria, the local government <br />may, among other options, adopt findings demonstrating that solutions to the <br />identified problem are "feasible," i.e., "possible, likely and reasonably certain to <br />succeed." Meyer, 67 Or App at 280, n 5." <br />The present case concerns just such a "two-stage approval process" for the proposed <br />PUD. <br />Note first the standard for "feasible" that was established in Meyer the solution <br />imposed by conditions of approval, such as the four proposed by staff in this case, <br />must not only be "possible," they must also be "likely and reasonably certain to <br />succeed." <br />The issue in this case, as acknowledged in the Staff Report "Constitutional Findings <br />for Exaction" (at 15 and 16), is that Oakleigh Lane in its current configuration cannot <br />safely and efficiently handled the projected, cumulative traffic arising from current <br />residents and future residents of the proposed PUD. The future "solution" is to <br />widen Oakleigh Lane's right-of-way to 45 feet, and improve the road. <br />Therefore, the "solution" in this case requires getting the necessary dedications of <br />right-of-way and improving the road to meet "Low Volume Residential Street" <br />standards. <br />Regardless of what portion of the solution can be imposed on the applicant, in some <br />way or fashion, getting all of the right-of-way easements from all the property <br />owners along Oakleigh Lane between the PUD and River Road must be ""possible, <br />likely and reasonably certain to succeed." No other solution has been explicitly or <br />October 16, 2013 Conte supplemental testimony re PUD 13-1 5 f Page <br />452 <br />