Eugene Hearing Official <br />July 31, 2024 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />“Thus, a “secondary access” is an[y] means by which ingress and egress to a <br />property is provided in addition to the primary means of ingress and egress, in <br />other words, a secondary access is a second point of ingress and egress to a <br />property or area of a property.” <br /> <br />The Woodward suggestion still fails to provide an operational meaning. One meaning might be <br />that each lot must have access from two directions. If that were the meaning, however, then <br />there could be no cul-se-sacs in any project; yet those are explicitly allowed by the code. Thus, it <br />must have a different meaning. The only plausible alternative meaning would be that one needs <br />to be able to get to the project frontage using two different streets, not to each individual lot in <br />the project. If that is the meaning, then the secondary fire access standard is met. One can get to <br />the project frontage from the northwest via Randy Lane, from south via Blacktail Drive, and <br />from the east via the Randy Lane stub. That should be viewed as meeting the standard in EC <br />9.6815(2)(d).6 <br /> <br />(b) Whether the applicant is entitled to an exception to the connectivity standards <br />due to excessive slopes? <br /> <br />The PUD narrative at page 9 states the entitlement to an exception to the need for a connection to <br />the north based on the slope of the existing topography. <br /> <br />“This proposal qualifies for an exception under (h)(2). Public streets can have a <br />maximum continuous grade of 15%, with distances of up 200’ going over 15% <br />(and up to 20%). A proposed street connection to property to the north will result <br />in street grades that do not meet this requirement. See attached plan from KPFF <br />illustrating the potential street connection and supporting the exception.” <br /> <br />The Staff Report and Public Works comments agree with this position. Staff Report at 11. <br /> <br />The Woodward letter explains that, as a factual matter, connectivity can be accomplished with <br />Hawkins View with a road along the north property line that meets the 20% grade limitation. <br />Woodward letter at 4 and graphic at Exhibit A. This not an option that would meet the city’s <br />20% grade limitation, as explained and illustrated in the KPFF Exhibit submitted here. That <br />memorandum explains, at page 2, that a connecting road would have to be a public road that <br />meets public road standards. Those standards would require adding a vertical curve to the street <br />at the Hawkins Lane intersection and at as the top of the slope, and, as explained on the graphic: <br /> <br />6 In addition, the mere fact that the phrase “secondary access” is ambiguous means that it may <br />not be applied at all. ORS 197.307(4).