Eugene Planning Commission <br />May 3, 2017 <br />Page 7 of 10 <br />b. Given that this lane exists and has been in existence for decades, current <br />fire code requirements for width could not be imposed for the lane itself <br />as a standalone fire department access road. <br />c. The proposed development accounts for actual safety improvements <br />regarding emergency response for both fire related and medical related <br />responses. <br />i. Installation of a fire apparatus access road turnaround - <br />will eliminate a dead end situation. <br />ii. The installation of 20ft wide fire department access road <br />associated with the proposed development - <br />commensurate and applicable for new development. <br />iii. The installation requirement that all applicable new <br />buildings will have automatic fire suppression systems in <br />the form of fire sprinkler systems. <br />April 12, 2017 Fire Department CommentslConditions, p. 1-2. These comments belie the <br />opponents' assertion that the proposed PUD will be an impediment to emergency <br />response. <br />Mr. Saberian, again, attempts to remotely contradict the Fire Marshal's <br />determinations in his April 18, 2017 letter. However, Mr. Saberian is not the Fire <br />Marshal, and, according to his resume, has no experience whatsoever in fire <br />prevention, fire response or fire safety issues. By contrast, the Fire Marshal's office is <br />charged by the City's code with the application, interpretation, and modification of <br />Fire Code required as part of the City's building permit review process. Accordingly, <br />the Planning Commission is more than justified in relying on the Fire Marshal's <br />determination that Oakleigh Lane will not pose a significant risk to emergency <br />response. <br />Accordingly, the overwhelming weight of authority in this case clearly <br />establishes that Oakleigh Lane functions safely and will continue to function safely <br />even with the proposed development. <br />D. Neighbors On-Street Parking is Not a Significant Impediment to <br />Emergency Response Posed by the PUD. <br />Unable to identify any problem with PUD, the neighbors assert that their own <br />parking on Oakleigh Lane would be an impediment to emergency response. However, <br />as LUBA has previously determined this argument is inconsistent with the express <br />language of EC 9.8320(6): <br />We also understand Conte to argue that the city improperly construed EC <br />9.8320(6) because it failed to consider whether the "configuration of Oakleigh <br />Lane" will be a "significant risk to public health and safety or* * *be an <br />impediment to emergency response." Conte Petition for Review 34. Meadows <br />responds that Conte's argument misconstrues the plain language of EC <br />