29 <br />ARGUMENT <br />In the Third Assignment of Error, the Intervenors-Petitioners argue that <br />LUBA erred by not requiring the City to reconcile its ostensible finding that "a <br />45-foot right-of-way was essential for safety" with its condition requiring the <br />dedication of 22.5-feet. Opening Brief, p. 39. However, as is detailed above, the <br />City did not determine that that a 45-foot right-of-way was necessary for safety. <br />On the contrary, the City Public Works staff provided constitutional findings in <br />support of a 22.5-foot right-of-way dedication, and the City Planning <br />Commission expressly found that "The constitutional findings address a future <br />need for street improvements abutting the property, rather than any <br />immediate need, based on safety issues or otherwise, associated with the <br />proposed PUD." LUBA Rec, 9 (emphasis added). ER 46. LUBA properly <br />affirmed these findings in its decision as being correct and supported by <br />substantial evidence. Rec. 36. ER 34. The Intervenors.-Petitioners do not <br />acknowledge or assign error to these findings, and their Third Assignment of <br />Error can provide no basis for reversal or remand. <br />To the extent that Intervenors-Petitioners' assignment of error is intended <br />to raise the question of how the City intends to get to a 45-foot right-of-way <br />from the applicant's 22.5-foot street dedication, and the existing 20-foot right- <br />of-way for Oakleigh Lane, the City Public Works staff answered that question <br />below: <br />