Eugene Hearing Official <br />July 31, 2024 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />In summary, the state law, which applies directly, does not allow the City to use its /PD overlay <br />zone to erode or negate MH rights other than in those situations that meet the exceptions <br />explicitly listed in the Statute and Rule. The City may not enforce the 901’ regulation because it <br />does not implement any of the listed exceptions in the statute. <br /> <br />2. Street Connectivity and secondary fire access standards are standards are met. <br />Woodward July 10 Lttr at pages 3-6); Staff Report at 11-12. <br /> <br />Mr. Woodward raises two issues here: (1) Whether the secondary fire access standards are met, <br />and (2) whether the “connectivity” standards in the code are met? The Staff Report and Public <br />Works comments are correct that both standards are met with the current proposal. <br /> <br />(a) Whether Secondary Fire Access standards are met? <br /> <br />The “Street Connectivity Standards” in EC 9.6815(2) include (d): <br /> <br />“Secondary access for fire and emergency medical vehicles consistent with <br />[the road with standards in] EC 9.6870 is required.” <br /> <br />Exceptions for the secondary fire access standard can be had. See EC 9.6815(2)(g). For an <br />application filed under clear and objective standards, this application qualifies for an exception <br />for secondary fire access under the same standards stated for the connectivity requirement – the <br />exception stated in EC 9.6815(2)(h)2. That is the excessive slope standard. <br /> <br />“Existing slopes would result in a street grade exceeding current adopted <br />street design standards when measured along the centerline of the proposed <br />streets to the existing grade of the subdivision boundary or abutting <br />property under separate ownership;” <br /> <br />As discussed below, the potential connections for secondary access points would exceed the <br />city’s 20% slope standard for streets. A new road for secondary fire access is not needed. <br /> <br />More importantly, the meaning of “secondary access” in the context of this standard needs to be <br />determined. The Woodward letter addresses this at pages 3-5. It settles on the following: <br /> <br /> <br />