Eugene Planning Commission <br />May 3, 2017 <br />Page 8 of 10 <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* * *safety* * *or an <br />impediment to emergency response" based on the future possible hammerhead <br />turnaround and the condition of approval requiring a temporary emergency <br />access easement on the temporary emergency turnaround on the property until <br />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 <br />will be an impediment. We also agree with Meadows that the city's findings <br />are adequate to explain why the city concluded that "the PUD is not a <br />significant risk to public health and safety* * *or an impediment to emergency <br />response" based on the portion of Oakleigh Lane that is located on the subject <br />property. <br />Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, 70 Or LUBA 132, 156-57 (2014)(Emphasis <br />added). <br />Furthermore, substantial evidence in the record establishes that parking on the <br />street is not a safety issue, in any case. Professional traffic engineer Michael Weishar <br />responded to the parking concerns presented in the Nemariam report by confirming: <br />Parking on the existing Oakleigh Lane functions acceptably and will <br />continue to do so with the Oakleigh Meadows PUD. As I pointed out in my <br />August 27, 2015 letter, "all of the homes on Oakleigh Lane have private <br />driveways or garages that permit the homeowners to park on their own <br />property. This is true in the study area as well. As I pointed out in that letter, <br />the "PUD will likewise provide on-site parking for all of its members and their <br />guests in excess of the City's minimum standards." Ms. Nemariam's study <br />does not account for these parking spaces or demonstrate that parking is <br />inadequate to accommodate the homeowers and their invite[e]s. <br />While some on-street parking occurs on the shoulders of Oakleigh Lane, this <br />parking does not adversely impact the safety or capacity of the road. Ms. <br />Nemariam's site visit notes identif[y] one or possibly two vehicles parked on <br />the gravel parking strip on the north side of the road. Exhibit F.I. This is <br />consistent with my own experience at the site, where I have seen intermittent <br />parking along the road. However, as I noted in my prior letter "[p]arking on <br />the shoulder that incidentally obstructs a portion of the improved surface <br />would not pose a safety issue as drivers would simply drive around the <br />