5 <br />1 length. Neither of these assumptions is accurate, and the intervenor's <br />2 arguments provide no basis for reversal or remand of the decision. <br />3 In particular, as will be addressed in detail below, the City of Eugene <br />4 determined that Oakleigh Lane is safe and will be safe with the proposed PUD <br />5 based on unrefuted evidence in the record from City public works staff and a <br />6 licensed transportation engineer. Moreover, the City's PUD requirements do <br />7 not impose an obligation on an applicant to immediately bring the entire street <br />8 up to current City standards for rights-of-way and improvement.' See EC <br />9 9.6870. Accordingly, the intervenor's first assignment of error should be <br />10 denied. <br />11 IA. Oakleigh Lane is not unsafe without a 45-foot right--of-way. <br />12 The intervenor argues under his first subassignment of error that it is <br />13 "indisputable" that the City's findings under EC 9.8320(5)(x) provide that <br />14 Oakleigh Lane is unsafe without a 45-foot right of way, and faults the decision <br />15 for failing to impose a condition requiring a 45-foot right of way. Brief, p. 14. <br />16 However, the City did not find that Oakleigh Lane is unsafe without a 45-foot <br />17 right of way, <br />i This is particularly true where, as here, portions of the street are not subject to <br />the City's jurisdiction. See Rec. 1313 (referral comments noting that portions of <br />Oakleigh Lane are a County local access road). <br />