Eugene Planning Commission <br />December 16, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />code that is not there and is not supported by the context or legislative history. The "get out" <br />interpretation is better than the "go around" interpretation. <br />Looking at the text, context, and legislative history of this standard, here is what can be said for <br />sure: <br />Text: <br />As the Staff Report correctly explains at pages 8-9, a street that meets this standard may be <br />unimproved at some point because "street" is defined to include "unimproved" right-of-way. <br />EC 9.0050 says: <br />Street. An improved or unimproved public or private way, other than an alley, <br />that is created to provide ingress or egress for vehicular traffic to one or more <br />lots or parcels., excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or <br />egress to land in conjunction with the use of land for.forestry., mining, or <br />agricultural purposes. * * * * [Emphasis added] <br />Context: <br />"[D]isperse motor traffic onto more than one public local" street cannot have the same meaning <br />as having "secondary access," as the Staff and the Hearings Official believe, because the phrase <br />"secondary access" is used elsewhere in the code. See EC 9.6870 Table; EC 9.6815(2)(d). <br />Different terms in the code are presumed to have different meanings. If the City Council had <br />intended that "disperse" traffic in the 19 Lot Rule meant the same thing as having secondary <br />access, then it would have used the phrase "secondary access." Thus, the "go around" or <br />"secondary access" meaning must be wrong. <br />Also, this standard is not about fire safety, because it does not appear in the other approaches to <br />developing land. For example, as staff explained, the applicant could get to this same <br />development pattern, more slowly and expensively, by doing five partitions in three successive <br />series under the standards for Needed Housing Partitions, or under any of the General <br />Standards. Those alternative approaches would not invoke the 19 Lot Rule. So, it's not about <br />fire safety. This project meets the lire code by sprinkling the houses. <br />Legislative History: <br />The legislative history also shows that including the 19 Lot Rule for Needed Housing PUD was <br />not about dealing with fire safety. See discussion in Final Argument beginning page 3 second <br />last para, quoting legislative history from 1999-2001. <br />Summary: <br />