15 <br />RESPONSE TO SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />LUBA Correctly Affirmed the PUD's Compliance with Applicable <br />Transportation and Public Health and Safety Standards Where <br />There Was No Evidence of Unsafe Conditions and the PUD <br />Conformed to All Relevant Standards. <br />Intervenors-Petitioners' Second Assignment of Error fails because its <br />interpretation of the relevant Eugene Code provisions assumes that the access to <br />the PUD - Oakleigh Lane - was determined to be unsafe. However, the City <br />determined below that Oakleigh Lane as it exists is safe for vehicles, bicycles, <br />pedestrians, and emergency vehicles, with the traffic from the proposed PUD. <br />On appeal, the Intervenors-Petitioners' attempt to work around this issue by <br />pointing to findings in support of the dedication of a half-street on a portion of <br />the PUD property as necessarily implying that the street is unsafe. Yet, the <br />City's decision also anticipates this argument by establishing that the half-street <br />dedication is to address future needs, and not to address current safety issues. <br />This finding was affirmed by.LUBA, and is not challenged in this appeal. <br />PRESERVATION OF ERROR <br />Intervenor-Respondent does not dispute the preservation of the alleged <br />error under this assignment. <br />STANDARD OF REVIEW <br />Intervenors-Petitioners. argue under their. Second Assignment of Error <br />that LU:BA's order is "unlawful in substance" because it affirms the City of <br />