(a) Prior written commitment of public funds by the appropriate public agencies. <br />(b) Prior acceptance by the appropriate public agency of a written commitment by <br />the applicant or other party to provide private services and facilities. <br />(c) A written commitment by the applicant or other party to provide for offsetting <br />all added public costs or early commitment of public funds made necessary by <br />development, submitted on a form acceptable to the city manager. <br />Before addressing this criterion, note that LUBA ruled that testimony regarding EC 9.8320(7) is <br />allowed, and no party appealed LUBA's ruling on this point. (See Exhibit L which provides the <br />relevant excerpt from LUBA's decision.) Were the commissioners to reject testimony on <br />EC 9.8320(7) and approve the application, you would almost certainly be faced with another <br />remand as a consequence. <br />This issue is addressed thoroughly in pages 26 through 37 of Exhibit K. The traffic <br />engineer's report (Exhibit E) substantially supports the referenced arguments, explaining how <br />in multiple ways - including insufficient right-of-way and paving, multiple kinds of <br />obstructions, excessive length and lack of connectivity to provide evacuation routes - Oakleigh <br />Lane cannot support adequate fire and emergency service being made available to the site. <br />Although LUBA did not agree with the appeal on this issue, that was only a result of LUBA <br />setting up a complete "straw man" appeal argument and then rejecting it. LUBA stated: <br />"the [appeal] arguments are entirely dependent on Conte's premise that in order to <br />establish compliance with EC 9.8320(7), [Oakleigh] Meadows was required to <br />demonstrate compliance with the EFC [Eugene Fire Code] standards." Page 35 of <br />LUBA II Decision. <br />However, I did not argue then, and for the record, I do not argue now, that Eugene Fire Code is <br />an explicit approval criterion under EC 9.8320(7). However, the EFC standards for a fire <br />apparatus access road are directly applicable to the determination of whether or not there would <br />be "adequate" fire protection service available to the PUD. <br />The question commissioners must answer is simple: Would adequate fire service be <br />available to the 29 dwellings on the proposed PUD via Oakleigh Lane. The capacity, safety and <br />presence of potential impediments must be evaluated to answer this question, particularly <br />because no one disputes that Oakleigh Lane doesn't come anywhere near meeting the widely <br />accepted standards for a fire apparatus access road. <br />It's worth noting again that Commissioner Taylor made that clear in her statement at the <br />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 />Commissioner Taylor goes on to explain that the Council has adopted street standards, which <br />(she claims) consequently define the standards for a fire apparatus access road. Her claim <br />doesn't directly address whether or not Oakleigh Lane is reasonably configured to support <br />adequate fire service; but in any case, if the City's adopted street standards do actually define <br />Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 21 April 12, 2017 <br />