Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 21, 2024 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />On this standard there was a major shift in the Public Works position between the first Staff <br />Report and its demands in the first open record submittal. In the Staff Report and at the hearing <br />Staff concurred and found compliance including with exceptions. The Staff Report at 11: <br /> <br />“Public Works referral comments confirm the standards at EC 9.6815 are either <br />met, not applicable, or an exception is warranted. A discussion of the applicable <br />standards and recommended exceptions is provided below.” <br /> <br />Staff concurred in the initial Staff Report that connectivity to the north was not possible due to <br />topography, referencing plan sheet EXH-1. <br /> <br />At the hearing opponents wanted connectivity to the west, to Hawkins Lane, and they also <br />alleged noncompliance with the secondary emergency access standard. <br /> <br />In the first open record period Staff did an about face, saying that no exception for connectivity <br />of Randy Lane had been justified, and, in any event, Staff wanted the western private road <br />extension of west stub of Randy Lane to be public, with all that entails, because connectivity <br />might be made in the future. <br /> <br />In the second open record the applicant responded to the opponents’ and staff’s new connectivity <br />and public road issues. We should, therefore, be back to the status quo ante at the time of the <br />supportive first Staff Report. <br /> <br />Below is a summary of the evidence and the applicant’s position on these connectivity issues. <br /> <br />Secondary access (EC 9.6815(2)(d)): The narrative at page 7 relied on the topography <br />exception to avoid secondary access. The Woodward July 10 hearing letter at 3 took issue with <br />compliance by challenging the topography exception. Both the Staff and the applicant <br />readdressed this issue in the first open record submittals. Staff summarized the Public Works <br />comments at page 5 of its July 31 submittal: <br /> <br />“The Public Works referral comments were revised in this section and determined <br />that the secondary access standard at (2)(d) is satisfied by the existing intersection <br />of Randy Lane and Blacktail Drive, which will allow access to and from the <br />development site via Hawkins Lane to the west and Blacktail Drive to the south.” <br /> <br />The applicant agreed with staff but added more detail at pages 6-7 in its July 31 letter, stating <br />two bases for compliance. First, it explained it was entitled to an exception under EC <br />9.6915(2)(g) due to topography. Second, and more straightforward, the applicant concurred with <br />the staff that the standard is complied with because the standard only requires two access ways to <br />the frontage of the project, and this project has it – access by Randy Lane and by Blacktail. Mr. <br />Woodward did not explain what his client believes secondary access means, but it can’t mean <br />two access points to every house or no cul-de-sacs would be allowed. Finally, the applicant <br />explained that if the standard is ambiguous (because it might mean two ways to get to every