<br /> <br /> 15 <br /> <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Planning Commission should further find that there is <br />substantial evidence in the record to show that the entire subject property is depicted on Figure H-2 <br />and is therefore “included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory” and the applicant need not <br />demonstrate compliance with the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards at EC 9.6880 to EC <br />9.6885. <br /> <br />Appeal Issue #3: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred when making a finding of compliance with <br />the secondary emergency access standard on a condition prohibiting any parking on the streets <br />with 21-foot paving. <br /> <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />The relevant approval criterion for this appeal issue is EC 9.8325(4)(a) which requires compliance <br />with EC 9.6800 through 9.6875. Specifically, EC 9.6815(2)(d) states: <br /> <br />(d) Secondary access for fire and emergency medical vehicles consistent with EC 9.6870 is <br />required. <br /> <br />The Hearings Official discusses the Staff Memorandum, dated August 14, 2024, from Public Works <br />that explains how the secondary access standards at EC 9.6815(2)(d) are satisfied by the existing <br />intersection of Randy Lane and Blacktail Drive, which will allow for access to the existing street <br />system and the construction of emergency vehicle turn arounds within the development site. The <br />Hearings Official notes on page 22 of the Decision that, “while the access to the vast majority of the <br />proposed lots would rely on a single access point from the intersection of Randy Lane and Blacktail <br />Drive, the express language of EC 9.6815(2)(d) requires only that the property itself have a secondary <br />access; it does not require secondary access to each, or even to a majority, of the lots.” <br /> <br />The Hearings Official found that secondary access for fire and emergency vehicles needs to be <br />consistent both with EC 9.6870 street width requirements and Eugene-Springfield Fire Marshal’s <br />referral comments dated July 10, 2024, recommending “NO PARKING-FIRE LANE” signage be posted <br />on both sides of the Randy Lane and Stonehenge Way, consistent with 2022 Eugene Fire Code, <br />Section 503.2.1. To satisfy the Eugene Code and the 2022 Eugene Fire Code, Section 503.2.1, the <br />Fire Department comments recommend that no parking be allowed on either side of the internal <br />private streets, and that both sides of both streets be marked with “NO PARKING-FIRE LANE” <br />signage. The Hearings Official determined that by prohibiting parking on the two internal streets, <br />the proposed PUD would satisfy the requirements of EC 9.6815(2)(d). <br /> <br />Summary of Applicant’s Argument <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred in basing a finding of compliance with the <br />secondary emergency access standard on a condition prohibiting any parking on the streets with <br />21-foot paving. He asserts that the finding is discretionary, therefore not a “lawful” condition, <br />citing the case Olson Memorial Clinic v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 418 (1991). <br /> <br /> <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 17 of 159