conditions as a "taking" regardless of how "likely" the commissioners believe it would be for <br />these conditions to be met. <br />The applicable legal standards are: <br />1. Meeting the conditions must be necessary and adequate to ensure conformance with <br />mandatory approval criteria. <br />2. The conditions must not be precluded as a matter of law. <br />The law requires that conditions of approval must guarantee that a mandatory approval criteria <br />will be met before the development occurs or at the time of development. <br />"A local government may find compliance with approval criteria by finding that the <br />proposed means to achieve compliance is feasible, and imposing conditions of approval <br />to ensure that the criteria are met." Stockwell v. Benton County, 38 Or LUBA 621 (2000). <br />(Emphasis added) <br />The LUBA decision in Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham, 52 Or LUBA 550 (2006) (Exhibit I) <br />provides an almost exact "template" for properly handling this case, if the Planning <br />Commission were to approve the application. LUBA stated: <br />"In our view, it is sufficient for the local government in such circumstances to <br />(1) adopt findings that establish that fulfillment of the condition of approval is <br />not precluded as a matter of law, and <br />(2) ensure, in imposing the condition of approval, that the condition will be <br />fulfilled prior to final development approvals or actual development." <br />(Page 6 of Exhibit L) <br />The Planning Commission should not mistakenly misconstrue that the constitutional limitations <br />that apply to exactions also constrain what requirements a City can impose regarding physical <br />conditions and/or infrastructure to ensure the public's safety. <br />Exhibit J provides further discussion on the legal issues that LUBA resolved in Butte <br />Conservancy. <br />EUGENE CODE 9.8320(5)(a) <br />OAKLEIGH LANE CANNOT PROVIDE THE PUD WITH <br />A SAFE AND ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. <br />Eugene Code 9.8320(5)(a) provides the most explicit standards for evaluating Oakleigh Lane: <br />"The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with <br />the following: <br />(a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways <br />(not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below)." <br />There is no dispute that Oakleigh Lane is nowhere close to conforming to the standards in <br />EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875. In fact, there is not a single section of Oakleigh Lane that meets <br />these standards. But most problematic of all is the 250-foot segment near the end of the cul-de- <br />Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 19 April 12, 2017 <br />