Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 15 <br />"The PC also concludes that the HO's conditions for a temporary turnaround <br />easement within the development site adequately address the emergency <br />response provision of EC 9.8320(6). The HO findings on page 29-31 are hereby <br />incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance with the applicable <br />criteria appealed under this assignment of error." Final Order, p. 5; LUBA Rec. <br />10. <br />LUBA affirmed the Planning Commission's decision stating: <br />"We also understand Conte to argue that the city improperly construed EC <br />9.8320(6) because it failed to consider whether the 'configuration of Oakleigh <br />lane' will be a 'significant risk to public health and safety or * * * be an <br />impediment to emergency response.' Conte Petition for Review 34. Meadows <br />responds that Conte's argument misconstrues the plain language of EC <br />9.8320(6) and impermissibly adds language to it. Meadows points out that EC <br />9.8320(6) requires the city to determine whether 'the PUD' is an impediment to <br />emergency response, not whether 'the configuration of Oakleigh Lane' or all <br />off-site streets would be an impediment. Meadows also points to the city's <br />findings that the PUD will not be a'significant risk to * * * public * * * safety or <br />an impediment to emergency response' based on the future possible <br />hammerhead turnaround and the condition of approval requiring a temporary <br />emergency access easement on the temporary emergency turnaround on the <br />property until the permanent hammerhead is developed. Record 375-76. <br />We agree with Meadows that the city properly understood the inquiry under <br />EC 9.8320(6) to be limited to a determination of whether the PUD is an <br />impediment to emergency response, and there is no basis in the express <br />language of the provision to support Conte"s argument that the city was <br />required to consider whether 'the configuration of. Oakleigh Lane' off-site will <br />be an impediment. We also agree with the Meadows that the city's findings are <br />adequate to explain why the city concluded that 'the PUD is not a significant <br />risk to public health and safety * * * or an impediment to emergency response' <br />based on the portion of. Oakleigh Lane that is located on the subject property." <br />LUBA Opinion, p. 35. <br />On remand, the opponents once again misconstrue the applicable standard in <br />order to urge the Planning Commission the balance of the existing street, and <br />specifically the issues of on-street parking by neighbors on Oakleigh Lane, and the <br />opponents new allegation that Oakleigh Lane does not have "a 19-foot paving width." <br />July 27; 2015 Appeal Testimony, p. 26. However, neither on-street parking by neighbors <br />or the unsubstantiated claim that Oakleigh Lane has a narrower paved width <br />demonstrate that "[t]he PUD" would be an "impediment to emergency response." <br />As the Planning Commission previously determined and LUBA affirmed, the <br />PUD provides no impediment to emergency response. As reflected in OMC's site <br />L F -I <br />318 <br />438 <br />