503.1 Where required. Fire apparatus roads shall be provided and maintained in <br />accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.1.3. See Appendix D. <br />503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be <br />provided for every facility, building or portion of building hereinafter <br />constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access <br />road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to <br />within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the <br />first story of the buildings as measured by an approved route around the exterior <br />of the building or facility. <br />(Section 503.1.1 provides exceptions, but none of those apply to the proposed <br />development.) <br />This section requires the obvious: There has to be a safe way to get fire apparatus to new <br />developments, such as the OMC's proposed 29 condominiums. This can't be accomplished <br />unless all of Oakleigh Lane meets the OMC standards, or, in the alternative, the adopted city <br />street standards.4 <br />Section 503.2.1 (page 68) specifies 20 feet as the minimum unobstructed width of a fire <br />apparatus access road. Because ORS 368.039(3) requires that "a governing body of a city shall <br />consult with the municipal fire department concerning the proposed specifications and <br />standards. The city governing body shall consider the needs of the fire department when <br />adopting the final specifications and standards," it should come as no surprise that the OFC <br />minimum width corresponds exactly to the minimum pavement width adopted by City Council <br />for two-way alleys, as well as Low Volume Residential streets. <br />Dead-end roads over 500 feet long, however, fall into a special category (as specified in Section <br />D103.4 and Table D103.4 on page 462) requiring a 26-foot width. And, if a dead-end road is over <br />750 feet long, as is Oakleigh Lane, even 26 feet isn't enough and the road requires "special <br />approval" before it can be considered as a fire apparatus access road. <br />This provision recognizes another obvious safety concern - dead-end roads provide only one <br />way in and out, unlike connected roads, for which there are two or more routes to a <br />development. The longer a dead-end road is, the greater the risk of obstruction. A wider road <br />provides some margin of safety with respect to potential obstructions, but there is a practical <br />limit, which is why OFC doesn't provide a specific width that would make a road such as <br />Oakleigh Lane safe. <br />As the survey in Attachment B shows, there's a fire hydrant within the 20-foot right of way (at <br />the property line between Tax Lots 13 and 14). This placement not only creates another <br />obstruction within the right-of-way, but also effective deployment of hoses requires that fire <br />trucks stand a bit off from the hydrant to allow room for firefighters to maneuver. Accordingly, <br />4 The second note under Section D107.1 also seems to cover Oakleigh Lane: <br />2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless <br />fire access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 12 August 31, 2015 <br />37 <br />