I On appeal, the Neighbors argue that the no-parking signs do not <br />2 completely address the Fire Marshal's larger concerns with the narrow and <br />3 windy nature of the approach route, and that the Fire Marshal's updated <br />4 comments, although noting that the no-parking signs improved emergency <br />5 access, did not retract all of the original concerns with the approach route or <br />6 positively state that the PUD is not an impediment to emergency response. <br />7 Accordingly, the Neighbors argue that the hearings official's findings on this <br />8 point are not supported by substantial evidence. <br />9 Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person would rely <br />10 upon to support a finding. Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 179, 855 <br />11 P2d 608 (1993); Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 351-52, 752 P2d 262 <br />12 (1988). In our view, a reasonable person could conclude from the Fire <br />alleviate current issues in navigating the existing street system. <br />The [updated] February 20, 2018 comments do not state that, with <br />the addition of no-parking signs, the proposed development would <br />create an impediment. Moreover, to the extent the emergency <br />response issues relate to the ability of trucks to maneuver and <br />turnaround, the proposed PUD could improve the existing <br />situation. By providing a loop road (Cupola Drive) near the end of <br />Capital Drive, emergency vehicles can more efficiently maneuver <br />the streets. Eliminating the need to turnaround, the vehicles can <br />negotiate the existing street system more efficiently. <br />"Based on the Fire Marshal's updated comments, and with the <br />addition of a loop street that allows greater maneuverability of <br />emergency vehicles, the evidence in the record indicates the <br />proposed PUD will not be an impediment to emergency <br />response[.]" Record 105. <br />Page 42 <br />