I development. We conclude that that city's findings are sufficient to support the <br />2 decision that EC 9.8815(1) is satisfied. <br />3 This subassignment of error is denied. <br />4 B. Public access along the river <br />5 EC 9.8815(2) requires, "[t]o the greatest possible degree, necessary and <br />6 adequate public access will be provided along the Willamette River by <br />7 appropriate legal means." As mentioned above, a public riverfront path is located <br />8 on city property adjacent to the eastern boundary of the subject property. The <br />9 public can access the riverfront path by passing through a public park at the end <br />10 of Fir Lane, a short distance from the development. The city decided that EC <br />11 9.8815(2) does not require direct public access to the river from the subject <br />12 property and that there is adequate public access along the river provided by the <br />13 riverfront path. The city reasoned that the subject property is not adjacent to the <br />14 river and that the public can access the river along the riverfront path. The city <br />15 found that the proposed development, which includes fencing the open space area <br />16 near the riverfront path, "includes no changes or impacts to the existing riverfront <br />17 path, a public park which provides adequate public access along the river." <br />18 Record 23. <br />19 Petitioners argue that the city misconstrued the applicable law in deciding <br />20 that the site need not provide direct access to the river. Petitioners argue that the <br />21 fact that there is access along the river is irrelevant and that Lombard is required <br />22 to provide public access from the subject property to the riverfront path "and/or <br />Page 17 <br />