40 <br />Constitutional Standards and concluded that it could require the applicant to <br />dedicate 22.5 feet of those 45 feet. It never took the third step and reconciled <br />those two conclusions and determined that the dedication, resulting in only a <br />42.5 foot right-of-way would be safe. Has the City considered this result, the <br />City might have then determined that something less than the City's normal <br />standard was sufficient for a safe system on Oakleigh Lane. Alternatively, the <br />City could have adopted a finding that an additional 2.5 feet right-of-way <br />dedication was feasible through various means and consequently adopted a <br />condition of approval requiring this portion of Oakleigh Lane to have a 45-foot <br />right-of-way, leaving the means of obtaining the additional 2.5 feet unspecified. <br />But the City took neither of these steps and instead approved a decision clearly <br />inconsistent with its own findings. <br />An analogy to other required public systems might help elucidate the <br />problem. If the City determined that adequate wastewater treatment could only <br />be provided through the use of a larger pipe downstream on someone else's <br />property, the City could require that wastewater system be in place, as long as <br />such a facility wasn't precluded as a matter of law. While the City could not <br />impose a burden of installing that new pipe that exceeded the constitutional <br />limitations of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994), the City also could <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />