ER-30 <br />1 record. LUBA's review is limited to the record filed by the local government. <br />2 ORS 197.835(2). The city's motion to strike Exhibit A is granted. <br />3 B. EC 9.8320(5)(a) and (b)/EC 9.8324(6) <br />4 1. Oakleigh Lane from River Road to the Subject Property <br />5 In a portion of his first assignment of error, we understand Conte to <br />6 argue that the city improperly construed EC 9.8320(5)(a) in failing to require <br />7 Meadows to demonstrate that the entirety of Oakleigh Lane, from its <br />8 intersection with River Road to the subject property, "provides a safe and <br />9 adequate transportation system" and meets all standards under EC 9.6800 <br />10 through 9.6875. Conte Petition for Review 10, 11, 13, 16-22, 29. First, <br />11 according to Conte, EC 9.8320(5) requires the entirety of Oakleigh Lane to <br />12 meet the standards in EC 9.8320(5)(a), (b) and (c) and requires Oakleigh <br />13 Lane's existing right of way to be widened and improved to 45 feet, consistent <br />14 with EC 9.6870.10 <br />15 The planning commission found that compliance with EC 9.8320(5) is <br />16 demonstrated by compliance with subsections (a), (b), and (c), and that EC <br />17 9.8320(5) does not contain an independent requirement to determine whether a <br />10 EC 9.6870 provides: <br />"Street Width. Unless an alternative width is approved through <br />use of other procedures in this code, the right-of-way width and <br />paving width of streets and alleys dedicated shall conform to those <br />designated on the adopted Street Right-of-Way map. * * <br />Oakleigh Lane is a low volume residential local street and the street right of <br />way map designates the right of waywidth between 45-55 feet. <br />Page 30 0+00079 <br />