The actual argument is quite easy to understand, whether or not one agrees with the <br />argument - Simply, that various standards, including those in EC 9.8320(6) and the Eugene Fire <br />Code provide a reasonable reference as to the minimum configuration required for a street to <br />function safely and adequately, including to provide unimpeded emergency response. In the <br />absence of any other standard in the record that supports a pavement width less than 20 feet, <br />these standards remain compelling evidence of what's required for conformance with <br />EC 9.8320(6), irrespective that the EC 9.8320(6) does not explicitly require these standards to be <br />met. <br />In fact, one of the reasons that EC 9.8320(6) doesn't explicitly require EC 9.6870 <br />standards be met is that EC 9.8320(5)(a), discussed below, actually does state that requirement. <br />The proper way to understand EC 9.8320(5)(a) and EC 9.8320(6) together is that EC 9.8320(5)(a) <br />sets very specific minimum standards and EC 9.8320(6) goes further to ensure that nothing <br />beyond these minimums is necessary to ensure unimpeded access in atypical situations. <br />As far as Oakleigh Lane meeting EFC standards for a fire apparatus access road, that too <br />relies on EC 9.8320(5)(a) because the City has exercised its statutory right to adopt street <br />standards that supplant street standards in the EFC. In fact, Commissioner Taylor made that <br />clear in her statement at the September 28, 2015 Eugene Planning Commission meeting: <br />"[U]nless the City's adopted less width by resolution, the 20 foot that's within the fire <br />code has to be observed." <br />Taylor goes on to argue that the City Council adopted the Design Standards and Guidelines for <br />Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, which therefore provide the effective <br />standards for a fire apparatus access road. My testimony does not argue otherwise, and I agree <br />that the basic minimum standard for a fire apparatus access road's paving width is 20 feet, as <br />specified for a low-volume residential street in the City's adopted standards and land use code. <br />Thus, the code doesn't require Oakleigh Lane to meet EFC street standards because <br />EC 9.8320(5)(a) requires meeting the adopted street standards that supplant street standards in <br />the EFC. <br />So, LUBA never addressed the actual arguments: 1) that EC 9.8320(5)(a) requires <br />meeting the adopted street standards; and 2) that evaluating conformance with EC 9.8320(6) <br />requires giving significant weight to the consistent requirement for paving width of at least 20 <br />feet found in the adopted street standards, the land use code street standards and the Eugene <br />Fire Code street standards. <br />The Planning Commission did not do that in the Revised Final Order; and instead relied <br />on demonstrably false statements. As noted by the Court of Appeals in Norvell v. Metro Area <br />LGBC, 43 Or App 849, 604 P2d 896 (1979), because there was extensive and focused evidence <br />and discussion about the standards for a fire apparatus access road, the Planning Commission <br />was required to at least respond to that issue in their findings. <br />Finally, LUBA affirmed the City's reliance in part on the "expert testimony"" of Michael <br />Weishar. As noted above, however, Weishar's testimony is unreliable for a variety of reasons; <br />and neither the Planning Commission nor LUBA ever dealt with the patently false claims that <br />Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 14 April 12, 2017 <br />