36 <br />be squared with the language of the code <br />THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: LUBA Erred in Concluding that the <br />City Had Imposed a Dedication for the Right-of-Way for the Portion of the <br />Property Adjacent to the Proposed PUD that Satisfied the Requirements of <br />EC 9.8320(5)(a). <br />1. Preservation of Error. <br />Conte argued that the City did not ensure that Oakleigh Lane would have <br />adequate right-of-way for the portion adjacent to the Proposed PUD to meet the <br />requirements of the City code and to provide a safe and adequate transportation <br />system. LUBA Rec 462 - 65. LUBA rejected that argument. ER p 35 - 6. <br />This issue was preserved. <br />2. Standard of Review. <br />In this Assignment of Error, Petitioners challenge LUBA's findings as <br />inadequate. As noted above, local governments must specifically articulate <br />their findings and explain how the evidence factored into its decision. 1000 <br />Friends of Oregon v. Metro, 174 Or App 406, 410, 26 P3d 151 (2001). If the <br />City has not specifically articulated and explained its findings, it is not the <br />Court's function to "make assumptions and draw inferences from other portions <br />of the local government's findings in order to surmise what the local <br />government's decision really was." Id., at 411. As the Supreme Court noted <br />some time ago: <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />