18 <br />3. EC 9.8320(6) <br />Once again, subsection (6) provides: "[t]he PUD will not be a significant <br />risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope <br />failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response." <br />LUBA concluded that this criterion addresses potential impacts to health and <br />safety, including impediments to emergency response, caused by the PUD <br />itself. Accordingly, it does not require consideration whether the configuration <br />of Oakleigh Lane off-site will be an impediment to emergency response or <br />otherwise create risk to public health and safety. Slip op. 35 (LUBA Rec. 37). <br />Based on that reading, LUBA affirmed the City's determination that subsection <br />(6) was complied with. That said, even if subsection (6) required the City to <br />analyze the safety of the entirety of Oakleigh Lane, the City did so and <br />concluded that Oakleigh Lane is safe. LUBA affirmed. <br />Petitioners argue that the City's findings conclude that Oakleigh Lane <br />will only be safe if residents of Oakleigh Lane do not park their cars along the <br />street. They allege that LUBA erred in concluding subsection (6) was complied <br />with because the challenged decision did not ensure that residents will not park <br />along Oakleigh Lane. <br />The residents of Oakleigh Lane are presumed to follow the law,' which <br />prohibits parking vehicles along Oakleigh Lane in a manner that will constitute <br />' ORS 40.135(1)(x) identifies the following as a legal presumption: "the <br />