• Oakleigh Lane, it is appropriate to defer public improvements via an irrevocable <br />petition.", PH-30 at 14. (Emphasis added) <br />As discussed at more length below, the Hearings Official's decision (and the Planning <br />Commission's prior decision) never addressed the obvious inconsistency between the conclusory <br />expression of "no concerns related to traffic safety" under the TIA subsection and the conflicting <br />findings that were based on the extensive analysis of what would be required for a "safe" <br />transportation system, i'.e., that unless Oakleigh Lane could "be improved to the City's minimum <br />street design standards," PUD residents "will not be assured of safe access via Oakleigh Lane." <br />Similarly, the Hearings Official's decision (and the Planning Commission's prior <br />decision) never addressed the inconsistency between the report's findings under the "safe <br />transportation system" requirement of EC 9.8320(5) and those under the paving requirements of <br />EC 9.8320(11)(b). <br />Instead, both the Hearings Official and the Planning Commission tried to put a wall <br />around the EC 9.8320(5) findings and dismiss those findings as having no relevance to the. <br />overall safety and adequacy of the only street serving the PUD. In both decisions it almost <br />appears as if the findings regarding the segment at the end of Oakleigh Lane, adjacent to the <br />subject site, apply to an entirely different street than the 870 feet of Oakleigh Lane between the <br />subject site and River Road. <br />There are two ways in which the decisions attempt to avoid dealing with the city <br />engineering sta f s findings that PUD residents would be "at risk" unless Oakleigh Lane had a <br />• 45-foot right-of-way and adequate paving. <br />First, without ever directly claiming that the Dolan constraints on exactions actually <br />prevented the City from requiring that Oakleigh Lane have a 45-foot right-of-way, the two <br />decisions repeatedly cite the Dolan limitations within the same text where the decisions claim <br />that the Public Works analysis under EC 9.8320(5) doesn't apply to most of Oakleigh Lane. The <br />short answer on this issue is: Dolan does not prevent the City from requiring that some or all of <br />Oakleigh Lane have a 45-foot right-of-way. <br />LUBA has made clear that Dolan does not apply to conditions of approval that aren't <br />exactions: <br />"Aside from the requirement under Dolan v. City of Tigard for an 'individualized <br />determination' justifying a condition of approval imposing an exaction, there is no <br />generally applicable requirement that conditions of land use approval be supported by <br />findings that justify imposing the condition." Davis v. City of Bandon, 28 Or LUBA 38 <br />(1994). <br />The second way the two decisions attempt to dismiss the analysis under EC 9.8320(5) is to <br />regurgitate the staffs demonstrably false statement that the Public Works analysis under <br />EC 9.8320(5) concerns only "future needs" and isn't at all related to impacts arising from the PUD: <br />[the] right-of-way dedication and an Irrevocable Petition are being required to <br />enable future public improvements." Staff findings in D-3 at 50, incorporated by the <br />Hearings Official at 51. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 6 July 27, 2015 <br />198 <br />