reasonable and correct. See McCoy v. Linn County, 90 Or App 271, 275-76, <br />2 <br />4 <br />6 <br />7 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />1s <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br />CITY ATfORNEY'S <br />OFFICE <br />125 E. a Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Phone {541) 662-8447 <br />Fax (541) 682-5414 <br />752 P2d 323 (1988) (LUBA's review is to determine whether the decision <br />maker's interpretation of the code is correct). <br />3. Response to Fifth Sub Assignment of Error (LE) <br />The City did not err in, concluding EC 9.8320(6) was complied <br />with <br />EC 9.8320(6) provides: "The PUD will not be a significant risk to <br />public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope <br />failure, stormwater and flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency <br />response." The safety issue Intervenor raises in his fifth subassignment of <br />error is'an alleged impediment to emergency response, based on the <br />transportation system. <br />Yet again, Intervenor relies upon undocumented safety concerns in <br />support of his challenge to the City's determination of compliance with EC <br />9.8320(6). Referral comments from the Fire Marshal state no concerns with <br />the turnaround or cul-de-sac. Rcc. 1293. The Planning Commission found: <br />"Based on the previous determination under the second assignment of <br />error [assignment addressing subsection. (5)] about the limited scope <br />of the PW constitutional findings for right-of-way exaction, the PC <br />finds no basis in the record to require additional right-of-way <br />dedication or street improvements. The PC concludes that the HO's <br />conditions for right-of-way dedications and irrevocable petitions <br />address a future need for street improvements, rather than any <br />immediate need associated with the proposed PUD. The PC also <br />concludes that the HO's conditions for a temporary turnaround <br />easement within the development site adequately address the <br />emergency response provision of EC 9.8320(6). The HO findings on <br />Page 19 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />