TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................1 <br />1. <br />NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AND RELIEF SOUGHT <br />1 <br />2. <br />NATURE OF ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED <br />1 <br />3. <br />STATUTORY BASIS OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION <br />1 <br />4. <br />DATE OF ENTRY OF FINAL ORDER <br /> <br />5. <br />NATURE AND JURISDICTIONAL BASIS OF AGENCY ACTION <br />1 <br />6. <br />QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON APPEAL, <br />2 <br />7. <br />SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS <br />2 <br />8. <br />STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS <br />3 <br />RESPONSE TO FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />7 <br />LUBA Correctly Denied Intervenor-Petitioner Trautman's Motion to <br />Intervene Which Was Filed After the 21 Day Deadline for Filing <br />7 <br />PRESERVATION OF ERROR <br />7 <br />STANDARD OF REVIEW 8 <br />ARGUMENT 9 <br />RESPONSE TO SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 15 <br />LUBA-Correctly Affirmed the PUD's Compliance with Applicable <br />Transportation and Public Health, and Safety Standards Where There Was <br />No Evidence of Unsafe Conditions and the PAID Conformed to All Relevant <br />Standards 15 <br />PRESERVATION OF ERROR .....................................................................15 <br />STANDARD OF REVIEW o-o-15 <br />ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................16 <br />RESPONSE TO THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 27 <br />LUBA Correctly Affirmed the Half-Street Dedication Where There Was No <br />Evidence of Safety Issues Which Required the Immediate Dedication or <br />Improvement of a Full Street Segment 27 <br />PRESERVATION OF ERROR 28 <br />STANDARD OF REVIEW 28 <br />ARGUMENT 29 <br />CONCLUSION 30 <br />