I Map II with all of the study areas including North and South Area 5). Absent a <br />2 better explanation from the city, we agree with petitioners that the city erred in <br />3 finding that North Area 5 and South Area 5 are not adjacent to the city's <br />4 existing UGB. <br />5 This subassignment of error is sustained. <br />6 b. Access to Coburg Road (South Area 5) <br />7 Petitioners' next subassignment of error challenges findings concerning <br />8 access to Coburg Road from South Area 5. Respondents apparently found that <br />9 South Area 5 could be eliminated as candidate exception land because Lane <br />10 County spacing standards for new access to minor arterials render it <br />11 unbuildable. Record 749. Petitioners argue that finding is not supported by the <br />12 record. Petitioners contend South Area 5 has considerable depth to develop an <br />13 internal road system with only a few access points on Coburg Road. <br />14 Petitioners attach Lane County Code sections addressing access to county <br />15 roads and contend they do not support respondents finding that additional <br />16 access for South Area 5 is not possible. <br />17 The response brief does not specifically acknowledge and address <br />18 petitioners' argument. However, respondents do argue that South Area 5 <br />19 "would not support any of the residential development * * Only <br />20 two parcels are large enough to contain any undeveloped area <br />21 suitable for development and they both have some floodplain areas <br />22 on them. * * * Most important are the transportation limitations on <br />23 these two parcels. Any development on them would require <br />24 additional access to busy Coburg Road where the layout of <br />25 existing driveways and Stallings Lane in the area would mean a <br />Page 26 <br />