1 Opinion by Bassham. <br />2 NATURE OF SEE DECISION <br />3 Petitioners appeal a city council decision on remand from LUBA approving an 86-lot <br />4 planned unit development (PUD) <br />5 MOTION TO INTERVENE <br />6 Persimmon Development (intervenor), the applicant below, moves to intervene on the <br />7 side of respondent. There is no opposition to the motion, and it is allowed. <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />FACTS <br />The challenged decision approves an 86-lot PUD on a 69.5-acre parcel iii the City of <br />Gresham near unincorporated areas of Clackamas County. The subject property is steeply <br />sloped and wooded, and within the city's Hillside Physical - Constraint Overlay District <br />(HPCD). The proposed development required a variance to allow two cul-de-sacs over 200 <br />feet in'length, a tree removal permit to log approximately 1800 trees in areas where streets <br />and utilities are proposed, and construction of a secondary road access for emergency- <br />vehicles through an existing residential lot in an adjoining subdivision within unincorporated <br />Clackamas County. <br />The city's initial approval was appealed to this Board, which sustained three <br />assignments of error, and remanded the decision to the city to address, among other things, <br />whether (1) providing the emergency vehicle access is feasible, and (2) removing 1800 trees <br />constitutes "clear cutting" that is prohibited under city code. <br />On remand, the city conducted a public hearing and adopted additional findings <br />concluding in relevant part that it is feasible to obtain the required emergency access and that <br />the proposed tree removal did not constitute "clear-cutting" that is prohibited under city <br />code. This appeal followed. <br />Page 2 <br />276 <br />