4 <br />1 will effectively function as a cul-de-sac, with traffic volumes falling <br />2 well below the 250 ADT threshold for low-volume streets. Therefore, <br />3 the nominal right-of-way width beyond the entry drive aisle will be <br />4 reduced to 33' (13' south of centerline), consistent with the approved <br />5 street connectivity exception." Rec. 1264-65. <br />6 D. Jurisdiction <br />7 OMC accepts that LUBA has jurisdiction to review the City's land use <br />8 decision approving the Tentative Planned Unit Development. <br />9 <br />Standard of Review <br />10 LUBA will deny a findings challenge where a petitioner fails to identify <br />11 any defect in the findings, but merely expresses disagreement with the <br />12 conclusions reached. Knapp v. City of Corvallis, 55 Or LUBA 376, 381 (2007). <br />13 See also McGowan v. City of Eugene, 24 Or LUBA 540, 546 <br />14 (1993)(disagreement with ultimate conclusions provide no basis for reversal or <br />15 remand). Likewise, a party's piecemeal challenge of only portions of findings <br />16 under an applicable approval criteria provides no basis for reversal or remand. <br />17 Mazeski v. Wasco Co., 28 Or LUBA 159, 176 (1994). <br />18 RESPONSE TO FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />19 The City Did Not Err in Concluding that the Proposed PUD Would <br />20 Provide a Safe and Adequate Transportation System. <br />21 The intervenor's arguments under the first assignment of error depend <br />22 entirely upon two false assumptions: (1) that Oakleigh Lane is presently unsafe <br />23 or would be made unsafe by the proposed PUD; and (2) that the applicable <br />24 PUD standards require the improvement of Oakleigh Lane along its entire <br />