38 <br />The difficulty with the EPWD analysis is that it explicitly reaches the <br />conclusion that Oakleigh Lane must have a 45 foot wide right-of-way or all <br />vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic "will not be assured of safe access" on <br />Oakleigh Lane, and therefore would not be consistent with the approval <br />criterion in EC 9.8320(5)(a) or (b). However, the approval issued by the City <br />results in a right-of-way that will be only 42.5 feet wide - and there is no <br />analysis at all of whether that would be a safe width or not. <br />In its Final Opinion and Order, LUBA regurgitated the City's response to <br />this issue and agreed with the City that "constitutional limitations placed on the <br />City by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allow the city to require <br />dedication at most one-half of Oakleigh Lane" and, therefore, "Conte has not <br />demonstrated that EC 9.6870 or any other authority allows the city to require <br />Meadows to dedicate more than one-half of Oakleigh Lane." ER pp 35-6. <br />LUBA misunderstood the argument and erred by accepting the City's framing <br />of the issue. <br />There was no argument that the applicant had to dedicate more property. <br />Instead, the argument noted that the only evidence in the record indicated that <br />full build-out of Oakleigh Lane was required in order to provide safe access: <br />"It is in the public's interest to have Oakleigh Lane consist of 45 <br />feet of right-of-way through the development site's entry drive <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />