39 <br />aisle in order to ensure safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and <br />motorists traveling on Oakleigh Lane (a low-volume street), to <br />ensure the efficient provision of emergency services and to <br />guarantee that the proposed development and adjacent properties <br />are accessible via Oakleigh Lane." Rec p. 1256. <br />Conte's argument was not that the applicant had to dedicate all of the 25 feet <br />necessary to provide the required 45-foot right-of-way. Rather, Conte argued <br />that the City had to adopt a condition of approval that would ensure Oakleigh <br />Lane would have the required 45 feet of right-of-way. Alternatively, the City <br />could have explained how a 42.5 foot wide right-of-way was safe when the only <br />analysis in the Record 13 found that a 45 foot right of way was required to avoid <br />significant risks to motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. <br />The City never analyzed the impacts of a narrower street, and the only <br />evidence in the record asserted that a 45-foot right-of-way was essential for <br />safety. LUBA's decision once again conflated the constitutional assessment <br />with the safety assessment. The City first determined what was required to <br />provide a safe and adequate transportation system and reached the conclusion <br />that a 45 foot wide right of way was required, based on the City's adopted street <br />standards. The City then reviewed whether that decision was consistent with <br />13 The analysis prepared by the City's Public Works Department and concurred <br />in by the Applicant's traffic engineer. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />