OFC Section D103.1 (page 461) requires: "Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus <br />access road, he minimum road width shall be 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders (see <br />Figure D103.1 [found on the same page])." Needless to say, Oakleigh Lane is far narrower; and <br />what makes matters even less safe is that the fire hydrant could be obstructed by a car parked <br />off the pavement, as shown below. While this might (or might not) be illegal, there is no signage <br />or markings to establish an adequate "no parking" zone around, or across from, the hydrant. <br />OFC Section 503.4 (page 68) demands that "[f]ire access apparatus roads shall not be obstructed <br />in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. The minimum widths and clearances <br />established in Section 503.2.1 shall be maintained at all times." An unobstructed pavement is <br />what the Public Works conclusions were entirely dependent upon, and which this time around <br />the Planning Commission must not ignore. <br />A simple and obvious way to help maintain an unobstructed roadway is to prohibit parking, <br />place signage to that effect and patrol and enforce the restriction. <br />OFC Section D103.6.1 (page 462) requires that "[f]ire lane signs as specified in Section D103.6 <br />[which includes Figure D103.61 shall be posted on both sides of fire access apparatus roads that <br />are 20 to 26 feet wide." <br />This is a problem for the applicant, however, because both the city and county (Rec 884) have <br />stated for the record that they have no intention of maintaining Oakleigh Lane, including <br />placing "No Parking" signs. (A phone conversation on August 31, 2015 with Dan Ingram of <br />Lane County Public works confirmed the county would not install "No Parking" signs without <br />an order by the Board of Commissioners.) <br />There is also no evidence that, even if signage were installed, Oakleigh Lane would be patrolled <br />adequately to ensure the road remains unobstructed at all times. In addition, it is also not <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 13 August 31, 2015 <br />38 <br />