30 <br />"Per Table 9.6870 the minimum right-of-way width for low <br />volume streets is 45'. The existing right-of-way in Oakleigh <br />Lane is 20', which was dedicated by the properties to the north <br />per the Plat of Oakleigh in 1927. Staff notes that the southerly <br />margin. of this 1927 dedication forms the centerline of Oakleigh <br />Lane and that any additional dedications would necessarily be <br />based on this centerline. <br />Based on the right-of-way requirement of 45' and the existing <br />right-of-way width (which as noted, is located entirely north of <br />the centerline), an additional 22.5' south of the centerline is <br />required. This . dedication would satisfy the right-of-way <br />requirements for the properties south of centerline, with the <br />remainder of the 45' right-of-way being required from the <br />properties on the north side of the centerline." <br />LUBA Rec. 1264 (emphasis added). ER 142. Hence, based on the existing <br />centerline and right=of-way the City will look to property owners to the north to <br />dedicate a modest 2.5 feet of right-of-way just as it has looked to the applicant <br />to dedicate 22.5 feet in this application. Until that time, as public works staff <br />found, Oakleigh Lane will continue to provide "safe passage for two-way <br />vehicular traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles." LUBA Rec. <br />1268. ER 146. <br />CONCLUSION <br />Intervenors-Petitioners have demonstrated no error in LUBA's decision. <br />LUBA property applied the unambiguous language of ORS 197.763(7)(c) to <br />deny Intervenor-Petitioner Trautman's Motion to Intervene. Moreover, both the <br />Second and Third Assignments of Error depend upon the erroneous assumption <br />that Oakleigh. Lane is unsafe, when the City properly determined that the same <br />would continue to function acceptably after full build-out of the PUD. <br />