9 <br />1 beyond the turnaround." Rec. 9. ER. 4. The intervenor ignores these findings, <br />2 and, again, has failed to identify any error in the decision. <br />3 B. Right of Way. <br />4 The intervenor argues that the City erred by failing to require all of <br />5 Oakleigh Lane - "from the development site to River Road" - to be <br />6 immediately improved to the standards specified in EC 9.6870. Brief, p. 22. <br />7 However, EC 9.6870 does not apply to all of Oakleigh Lane, and imposes no <br />8 timeline for development. <br />9 By its express terms, EC 9.6870 applies only to "dedicated" streets and <br />10 alleys.3 OMC did not dedicate all of Oakleigh Lane, because Oakleigh Lane is <br />11 not located entirely on the subject property. Instead, OMC dedicated a 22.5-foot <br />12 half-street segment, and a turnaround on its property. The City properly ensured <br />13 that these dedicated areas conformed to applicable City right-of-way standards, <br />14 and provided adequate space for future sidewalks. Rec. 1264-65. EC 9.6870 did <br />15 not require OMC to dedicate additional right-of-way on land that it did not own. <br />16 Furthermore, as the Planning Commission determined, EC 9.6870 does <br />17 not require immediate improvement of dedicated areas. Rec. 8. ER. 3. EC <br />18 9.6870 does not impose a requirement that dedicated streets be immediately <br />19 constructed to the paving standards in that provision. Moreover, the applicable <br />3 "Unless an alternative width is approved through use of other procedures in <br />this code, the right-of-way width and paving width of streets and alleys <br />dedicated shall confirm to those designated on the adopted Street Right-of- <br />Way map." (Emphasis added). <br />