4 <br />in the only evidence relied on by the City in finding that the application had met <br />those criteria. Finally, LUBA erred in affirming the City's findings that a 42.5 <br />wide right-of-way would be adequate when the only evidence in the record <br />demonstrates that a minimum right-of-way width of 45 feet was required to <br />provide for a safe and adequate transportation system and anything less would <br />create a significant risk to public health and safety, including impeding <br />emergency response. <br />8. Statement of Material Facts. <br />This petition for judicial review concerns errors arising from two separate <br />sets of facts, which are set out in two different places in LUBA's Opinion. The <br />facts that underlay the procedural error can be found on pages 2 and 3 of <br />LUBA's Opinion: <br />"[Petitioners Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors et al (Neighbors)] filed <br />their [Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA)] on January 3, 2014. <br />Under ORS 197.830(7), the deadline for intervention in the appeal <br />expired on January 24, 2014. Trautman filed his motion to <br />intervene on March 11, 2014, 68 days after the NITA was filed. As <br />we explained in our May 1 order, as required by OAR 661-010- <br />0015(2) and (3)(f)(D), on January 3, 2014, Neighbors served <br />copies of the NITA on "[a]ny * * * person to whom written notice <br />of the land use decision or limited land use decision was mailed as <br />shown on the governing body's records." However, after the NITA <br />was filed, the city discovered that it had failed to mail notice of the <br />decision to all persons who participated orally or in writing during <br />the proceedings before the city, and on February 4, 2014, after the <br />21-day deadline for intervention had expired, the city subsequently <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />