3 <br />transportation system outside the proposed development? <br />(c) Did LUBA err in affirming the City's determination that a 42.5 <br />wide street was safe notwithstanding the only evidence in the record indicating <br />that any right-of-way less than 45 feet presented significant safety issues? <br />7. Summary of Arguments. <br />This Petition for Judicial Review presents several issues, one procedural <br />and the rest substantive. The procedural issue involves the ability of a <br />participant to intervene in a LUBA proceeding when the local government fails <br />to follow statutory requirements and notify the participant of hearings and the <br />final decision. When the participant was eventually served with the notice of <br />intent to appeal, he moved to intervene in the appeal. The text and context of <br />ORS 197.830(7), as well as the legislative history of that provision, support <br />allowing intervention in this situation. <br />The substantive issues revolve around the requirements in the Eugene <br />Code ("EC") to provide "safe and adequate transportation systems" and to <br />avoid creating "significant risks to public health and safety." LUBA erred in <br />affirming the interpretation of the code to not require any consideration of street <br />adequacy outside of the boundaries of the proposed development. In addition, <br />LUBA erred in affirming findings that never reconciled conflicting statements <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />