20 <br />suggest that the impacts of the proposed development will result in unsafe <br />conditions on Oakleigh Lane." LUBA Rec. 1268-69 (emphasis added). <br />ER 146-47. Again, City public works staff did not state or imply that Oakleigh <br />Lane must have a 45-foot right-of-way to be safe. <br />Finally, the City of Eugene Planning Commission explained that the <br />22.5-foot half-street dedication was not necessary to address any existing safety <br />issue. The Planning Commission decision states: <br />"The PC finds that the constitutional findings in the Public <br />Works referral comments are limited to justification for a <br />proportional right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the <br />subject property that would accommodate future public street <br />improvements. The constitutional findings address a future <br />need for street improvements abutting the property, rather <br />than any immediate need, based on safety issues or <br />otherwise, associated with the proposed MD." <br />LUBA Rec. 9' (emphasis added). ER 46. LUBA concurred, holding that the <br />Planning Commission's findings were accurate and supported by substantial <br />evidence. Rec. 36. ER 34. Intervenors-Petitioners do not assign error to <br />LUBA's finding in this appeal. Accordingly, Intervenors-Petitioners have <br />failed to establish that Oakleigh Lane is unsafe, and their Second Assignment of <br />Error,should be denied. <br />B. The PUD Complies with the Transportation Standards at EC <br />9.8320(5). <br />