18 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />signed by the property owner and accepted by the City. EC 9.8360(5)(b). City <br />public works staff recommended that improvements be deferred, and the City <br />appropriately conditioned the PUD. Rec. 1268-69; 409.' ER 75. Accordingly, <br />this subassignment of error should be denied. <br />The intervenor also argues, again, that the public works findings in <br />support of the dedication imply that Oakleigh Lane is unsafe and must be <br />immediately improved along its entire length. Brief, p. 39. However, the City <br />public works staff found exactly the opposite: "since there is nothing to suggest <br />that impacts of the proposed development will result in unsafe conditions in <br />Oakleigh Lane, it is appropriate to defer public improvements via an <br />irrevocable petition." Rec. 1268-69. Again, the intervenor provides no basis to <br />sustain this assignment of error. <br />As the intervenor provides no basis to sustain its first assignment of error, <br />14 the same should be denied. <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />RESPONSE TO SECOND ASSIGMENT OF ERROR <br />The City Properly Found that the PUD Would Have Minimal Off- <br />Site Impacts With Regard to Traffic. <br />The City found that OMC would have minimal off-site impacts under EC <br />9.8320(12). The intervenor argues under his second assignment of error that <br />the City improperly determined that the PUD would have minimal off-site <br />7 There is no question regarding the legal feasibility of the condition. <br />Accordingly, Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham, 52 Or LUBA 550 (2006), <br />is not applicable. <br />