• The City would not have to address who would provide the pipe, just that it was feasible in <br />While. transportation systems are different than wastewater systems, facilities for both <br />roved to the City's <br />"Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be improved to the City's <br />minimum.street design standards" and the 168 new vehicle trips per day generated by <br />the proposed development, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic <br />generated by the proposed development; will not be assured of safe accessvia-Oakleigh <br />Lane." PH-30 at 3. <br />some manner. <br />must be adequate and safe, and the proper interpretation of the Cites code in EC 9.8320(5) <br />serves exactly that purpose for transportation systems. While constitutional limitations <br />constrain how much of the burden an applicant can be required to assume, they do not in any <br />way negate or diminish the standards that must be met to ensure the public safety. <br />In this case, the City has unequivocally determined that Oakleigh Lane must have a <br />45-foot right-of-way adjacent to the PUD to be sufficient for safe and adequate use that would <br />arise from the increased traffic generated by the PUD. The City cannot neglect to ensure that <br />happens. ' <br />If this point isn't clear by now, let me emphasize again that the following justification, <br />whether repeated in this remand proceeding, or as found iri the Planning Commission s prior <br />appeal decision, doesn't provide any analysis at all of the actual issue: <br />"The constitutional findings in the Public Works referral comments are limited to <br />• justification for a proportional right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the subject <br />property that would accommodate future public street improvements." Planning <br />Commission Final Order dated December 13, 2013 at 4. <br />Whether or not the only way that Public Works used their own analysis of Oakleigh Lane was <br />to justify the exaction of a 22.5-foot right-of-way, their findings regarding the public's safety <br />• were unambiguous Oakleigh Lane must have a 45-foot right-of-way to ensure the public will <br />be assured of safe access. Here it is again in black-and-white: <br />Note that nowhere at all in the Hearings Official's decision (or in the Planning Commission's <br />prior decision or the City's LUBA brief) is there any claim that Dolan actually prevents the City <br />from requiring that Oakleigh Lane have a minimum 45-foot right-of-way along the <br />development frontage. Instead, the valid claim that Dolan limits the right-of-way exaction has <br />simply been repeated in findings regarding the required Oakleigh Lane right-of-way, as if Dolan <br />applied. But, as LUBA made clear in Stockwell v. Benton County, Dolan does not apply to a . <br />requirement that Oakleigh Lane have an adequate right-of-way because that requirement <br />would notbe a "taking." <br />The applicant's attorney also claimed that "the City Public Works staff [has] answered" <br />"the.question of how the City intends to get to a 45-foot right-of-way from the applicant's <br />22.5-foot street dedication, and the 20-foot existing right-of-way for Oakleigh Lane." OMC <br />• 73 The City's minimum street standards require at least a 45-foot right-of-way. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 15 <br />July 27, 2015 . <br />207 <br />327 <br />