INDEX <br />A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 <br />1. Nature of the Proceeding and Relief Sought 1 <br />2. Nature of Order Sought to Be Reviewed 1 <br />3. Statutory Basis of Appellate Jurisdiction 2 <br />4. Date of Entry of Final Order 2 <br />5. Nature and Jurisdictional Basis of Agency <br />Action 2 <br />6. Questions Presented on Appeal 2 <br />7. Summary of Arguments 3 <br />8. Statement of Material Facts 4 <br />B. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 6 <br />FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: LUBA Erred in <br />Denying the Motion to Intervene Filed by Simon Trautman 6 <br />1. Preservation of Error 6 <br />2. Standard of Review 6 <br />3. Argument .........................................................................................7 <br />SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: LUBA <br />Misconstrued the Requirements of EC 9.8320(5) and (6) and <br />Failed to Enforce the Requirement for "Safe and Adequate <br />Transportation Systems" and to prevent a "Significant Risk <br />to Public Health and Safety <br />18 <br />1. Preservation of Error <br />18 <br />2. Standard of Review <br />18 <br />3. Argument <br />20 <br />THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: LUBA Erred in <br />Concluding that the City Had Imposed a Dedication for the <br />Right-of-Way for the Portion of the Property Adjacent to the <br />Proposed PUD that Satisfied the Requirements of EC <br />9.8320(5)(a) <br />36 <br />1. Preservation of Error <br />36 <br />2. Standard of Review <br />36 <br />3. Argument <br />37 <br />C. CONCLUSION <br />41 <br />EXCERPT OF RECORD <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />