34 <br />Lane at Rec pp 1256 - 58 and (2) the existing section of Oakleigh Lane at Rec <br />pp 1268 - 69, was never resolved. <br />As noted above, that first analysis said that a 45 foot right-of-way is <br />required to meet the safety standards of EC 9.8320(5) and (6). Rec pp 1256 - <br />57. However, the second analysis said that the existing conditions are <br />adequate' I Rec p 1268. <br />Similarly, LUBA dismisses Conte's concerns with the safety of the <br />transportation system by noting that EC 9.6870 applies only to "dedicated" <br />streets. ER p 31. Once again, LUBA accepted the framing of the issue by the <br />City and avoided engaging the real issues. The issues are whether the <br />Applicant has provided "safe and adequate transportation systems" and whether <br />the PUD will be a "significant risk to public health and safety." Those <br />questions have only a tangential relationship to any dedication requirement. 12 <br />" As noted elsewhere, the adequacy is premised on ensuring that "the paved <br />surface is not blocked by parked vehicles," Rec p 1268, which is nowhere <br />guaranteed in the challenged decision. <br />" EC 9.8320(5) is an approval criterion that must be met - the PUD must <br />provide "safe and adequate transportation systems." EC 9.8320(5) does not, <br />however, require that the applicant dedicate right of way or make improvements <br />beyond constitutional requirements. The City and LUBA took the odd position <br />that the standards referenced in EC 9.8320(5)(a) do not apply to Oakleigh Lane <br />because the standards apply only to streets "dedicated" by the applicant. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />