The Hearings official should not confuse the results of the Public Works engineer's <br />analysis with what can be imposed on the applicant under the "Nollan and Dolan" <br />rules for exaction. <br />It would be wholly unreasonable to apply the City's analysis as if the right-of-way to be <br />granted along the applicant's property would then result in a revised analysis that <br />concluded Oakleigh Lane was safe for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, despite <br />remaining a narrow, substandard, unimproved and unmaintained road. <br />In other words, there can be no reasonable finding that 45 feet of right away is <br />necessary for the "safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists traveling on Oakleigh <br />Lane" if the same right-of-way width weren't also necessary along the rest of Oakleigh <br />Lane for "safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists traveling on Oaklei hg Lane." <br />The constitutional requirements may prevent the City from requiring the applicant to <br />improve all of Oakleigh Lane. However, the City cannot on the one hand assert that a 45 <br />foot right-of-way is a necessity for safely handling the traffic that will result from the <br />combined current and new traffic, and then ignore whether this can ever be <br />accomplished. While the condition on this application may be limited to an equitable, <br />proportional burden on the applicant; in order to rely on this condition of approval for <br />a finding that one or more traffic-related approval criteria are met, there must be a <br />finding that it's feasible for additional Oakleigh Lane right-of-way to be dedicated to <br />meet the Low Volume Residential Street standard that is necessary for the "safety for <br />pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists traveling on Oakleigh Lane." <br />Otherwise, the condition would not serve any significant purpose in improving the <br />safety of Oakleigh Lane and therefore could not be relied upon in findings for <br />consistency with approval criteria related traffic safety. <br />In this case, the evidence in the record substantially supports the conclusion that it isn't <br />feasible in the foreseeable future to get another 221/2feet of right-of-way from the <br />properties on the south side of Oakleigh Lane and another 21/z feet of right-of-way from <br />the properties on the north side of Oakleigh Lane. And thus, based on the conclusions <br />of the Public Works staff analysis, the conditions that the Staff Report suggests be <br />imposed on the PUD cannot satisfy the requirement of EC 9.8320(5) that the "PUD <br />provides safe and adequate transportation systems For the same reason, the <br />suggested conditions cannot satisfy other, traffic-related criteria, as discussed below. <br />The Public Works Referral Comments admit this dilemma, but attempt to slide by the <br />pivotal issue of whether or not Oakleigh Lane can ever be feasibly improved: <br />"Oakleigh Lane includes a number of structures that were constructed close to the <br />existing pavement and right-of-way, [which] may result in the need for creative <br />street design when the street is improved through a future LID [Local Improvement <br />District] process." <br />October 9, 2013 Conte testimony re PUD 13-1 8 1 P a g e <br />