11 <br />the adopted Street Right-of-Way map. When a street segment <br />right-of-way width is not designated on the Street Right-of-Way <br />map, the required street width shall be the minimum width shown <br />for its type in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths." <br />(Emphasis added). <br />Based on that language, LUBA clarified that the standards only apply to <br />dedicated rights-of-way and thus concluded that the street standards do not <br />apply to the entirety of Oakleigh Lane. LUBA did not conflate the safety issue <br />and the dedication issue, as Petitioners suggest. LUBA merely agreed with the <br />City that Oakleigh Lane, as it exists, is adequate to serve the increased traffic to <br />be generated by the proposed PUD. Based on that conclusion, LUBA agreed <br />with the City that Oakleigh Lane did not have to be improved or widened at this <br />time. The City also required some dedications of land from the applicant for <br />possible improvements to the street in the future. Petitioners do not explain <br />how this is error. <br />2. Finding of Compliance with EC 9.8320(5) Supported by <br />Substantial Evidence6 <br />The gist of Petitioners' substantial evidence argument is that Oakleigh <br />Lane is unsafe and that an apparent conflict in the evidence found in Public <br />Works staff comments was never resolved. Petitioners' Opening Brief 34. <br />Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the City explicitly addressed the alleged <br />conflict and resolved it, concluding that there were no safety issues with the <br />anticipated traffic generated from the proposed PUD. <br />6 Standard of review applicable here is outlined above at Section II.A.2. <br />