I in the development share common architectural elements does not undermine the <br />2 conclusion that Building 2 is designed with architectural features sufficient to <br />3 satisfy the adjustment criteria. <br />4 The fourth assignment of error is denied. <br />5 FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />6 EC 9.6815(2)(f) provides: <br />7 "In cases where a required street connection would result in the <br />8 extension of an existing street that is not improved to city standards <br />9 and the street has an inadequate driving surface, the developer shall <br />10 construct a temporary barrier at the entrance to the unimproved <br />11 street section with provision for bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency <br />12 vehicle access. The barrier shall be removed by the city at the time <br />13 the existing street is improved to city standards or to an acceptable <br />14 standard adopted by the public works director. In making a <br />15 determination of an inadequate driving surface, the public works <br />16 director shall consider the street rating according to Eugene's <br />17 Paving Management System and the anticipated traffic volume." <br />18 (Emphasis added.)' <br />' In its response brief, Lombard argues that the "inadequate driving surface" <br />standard in EC 9.6815(2)(f) is not "clear and objective" and thus cannot be <br />applied to its application to develop housing in light of the limitation in ORS <br />197.307(4). See n 3. Lombard's Response Brief 24-25. However, Lombard does <br />not assign error to the city's determination that EC 9.6815(2)(f) constitutes <br />applicable criteria in its cross-petition for review. Even if Lombard had cross- <br />assigned error, we would not reach it, for the same reasons explained under the <br />second assignment of error, because we deny the fifth assignment of error. Thus, <br />we express no opinion about Lombard's argument that EC 9.6815(2)(f) cannot <br />be applied. <br />Page 23 <br />