12 <br />1 For example, although EC 9.6870 requires that Oakleigh Lane have a <br />2 45-foot right-or-way, EC 9.6870 does not require the developer to acquire the <br />3 ROW, or even be able to acquire the ROW. As LUBA explained in Butte <br />4 Conservancy v. City of Gresham, 52 Or LUBA 550 (2006), the ROW might be <br />5 provided through condemnation proceedings by the City or other means. <br />6 Finally, PUD approval criterion EC 9.8320(11) also relies on specific <br />7 public improvement standards adopted elsewhere in the code, which serve the <br />8 purpose of protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. <br />9 EC 9.8320(11) The PUD complies with all of the following: <br />10 <br />11 (b) EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards. <br />12 EC 9.6505 Improvements-Specifications <br />13 (3)(b) Streets and Alleys <br />14 (4) Sidewalks <br />15 (5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways. <br />16 Eugene's elected officials clearly intended that the three approval criteria in <br />17 EC 9.8329(5), (6) and (11)(b) work in consort to ensure a proposed PUD <br />18 development, such as the Oakleigh Meadows PUD, is served by one or more <br />19 street(s) and other accessways that are adequate, safe, pose no significant risk <br />20 to others and do not have impediments to emergency response vehicles. <br />21 It would produce an absurd outcome to apply these criteria in such a <br />22 manner that a new PUD at the end of Oakleigh Lane could be approved without <br />