5 <br />a finding of fact based upon the entire local government record. <br />Instead, we evaluate whether LUBA properly stated and applied its <br />own standard of review. If LUBA does not err in the articulation <br />of its substantial evidence standard of review under ORS <br />197.835(9)(a)(C), we would reverse LUBA's decision only when <br />there is no evidence to support the finding or if the evidence in the <br />case is `so at odds with LUBA's evaluation that a reviewing court <br />could infer that LUBA had misunderstood or misapplied its scope <br />of review.' Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 359, 752 P2d <br />262 (1988)." <br />Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane County, 218 Or App 339, 345, 180 P3d 35 <br />(2008). <br />B. Introduction <br />While Petitioners' main contention is that Oakleigh Lane is inadequate to <br />safely serve the anticipated increase in traffic to be generated by the proposed <br />PUD, this appeal also implicates how the City deals with incremental <br />development. The issue of what improvements (public or privately funded) (on <br />or off the subject property) must be completed prior to final approval of a <br />private development is an ongoing issue everywhere. The constitutional <br />restrictions placed on local government limit the improvements that can be <br />required of a private developer, and the increasing scarcity of public resources <br />require local governments to find innovative ways to plan for and fund public <br />infrastructure, including street improvements. <br />For purposes of improving streets to city standards, the City requires <br />dedications from developers of land for future road improvements when and <br />where it can. Not all roads serving a development will need to be fully <br />