27 <br />parking impeding emergency vehicles (and there is not), on-street parking by <br />third-parties does not demonstrate that "the PUD * * * [is an] impediment to <br />emergency response." The PUD will provide 47 parking spaces which exceeds <br />the City's standards for off-street parking, and it more than adequate for its <br />residents and their invitees. LUBA Rec. 1036; EC 9.6410(3). Accordingly, the <br />alleged on-street parking by third-parties does not demonstrate that "the PUD" <br />is an impediment to emergency response, and the Intervenors-Petitioner have <br />failed to demonstrate any error in LUBA's interpretation of this provision. <br />For each of the foregoing reasons, the Second Assignment of Error <br />should be denied. <br />RESPONSE TO THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />LUBA Correctly Affirmed the Half-Street Dedication Where There <br />Was No Evidence of Safety Issues Which Required the Immediate <br />Dedication or Improvement of a Full Street Segment. <br />Intervenors-Petitioners' Third Assignment of Error fails because it also <br />assumes that Oakleigh Lane is unsafe based on the findings that support the <br />half-street dedication. As the City found, the half-street dedication was <br />required to meet future transportation needs, and not to address immediate <br />safety concerns. LUBA properly affirmed these findings as. being supported by <br />substantial evidence, and Intervenors-Petitioners demonstrate no error in the <br />application of that standard. Accordingly, this assignment of error fails as well. <br />