28 <br />PRESERVATION OF ERROR <br />Intervenor-Respondent does not dispute the preservation of the alleged <br />error under this assignment. <br />STANDARD OF REVIEW <br />Intervenors-Petitioners' Third Assignment of Error is a challenge to <br />LUBA's :findings regarding the proposed half-street dedication. The scope of <br />review on a findings challenge at the Court of Appeals is limited to determining <br />whether LUBA properly applied its standard of review: <br />"our task is not to assess whether the local government erred in <br />making a finding, but to determine whether LUBA properly <br />exercised its review authority. Thus, we do not substitute our <br />judgment for LUBA's on whether a reasonable person. could <br />make a finding of fact based upon the entire local government <br />record. Instead, we evaluate whether LUBA properly stated and. <br />applied its own standard of review. If LUBA does not err in the <br />articulation of its substantial evidence standard of review under <br />ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), we would reverse LUBA's decision <br />only when there is no evidence to support the finding or if the <br />evidence in the case is 'so at odds with LUBA's evaluation that <br />a reviewing court could infer that. LUBA had misunderstood or <br />misapplied its scope of review.' Younger v. City of Portland, <br />305 Or 346, 359, 752 P2d 262 (1988)." <br />Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane County, 218 Or App 339, 345, 180 P3d 35 <br />(2008) <br />