<br /> <br /> 16 <br /> <br />Staff Response <br />Staff agrees with the Hearings Official that the requirement for secondary access standards for <br />fire and emergency medical vehicles at EC 9.6870 is met by the existing intersection of Randy <br />Lane and Blacktail Drive, which will allow for access from the subdivision to the existing street <br />system to the north (Hawkins Lane), to the east (Blacktail Drive) and to the west (Timberline <br />Drive). <br /> <br />However, the Hearings Official also referenced the Eugene-Springfield Fire Marshal’s referral <br />comments (dated July 10, 2024) and the recommendation for No-Parking Fire Lane signage on <br />both sides of the private streets. The Hearings Official found that “With conditions prohibiting <br />parking on the two internal streets and requiring the additional restrictions identified in the Fire <br />Department comments (dated July 10, 2024), the proposed PUD would satisfy the language of <br />EC 9.6815(2)(d).” <br /> <br />Staff notes EC 9.6815(2)(d) states, “Secondary access for fire and emergency medical vehicles <br />consistent with EC 9.6870 is required.” The standards at EC 9.6870 only require right-of-way and <br />paving widths. Staff believes the Hearings Official erred with this portion of the findings because <br />the Eugene Fire Code is separate from the Eugene Code Chapter 9 and its enforcement is <br />through the Fire Marshal’s Office. The requirement for No-Parking Fire Lane signage and other <br />fire code related requirements are addressed and enforced by the Fire Marshal’s Office at the <br />time of building permits. <br /> <br />Staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the Hearings Official’s decision and find the <br />standard for secondary access is met for fire and emergency medical vehicles, consistent with EC <br />9.6870. There should be no requirement for No-Parking Fire Lane signage as a condition of approval <br />at this time since it is unnecessary to meet the relevant approval standard at EC 9.6815(2)(d), and <br />will nonetheless (and appropriately) be addressed at the time of building permits under separate <br />authority of the applicable Fire Code. <br /> <br />Appeal Issue #4: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred by not considering the applicant’s evidence <br />submitted on August 14, 2024, during the second open record period, rebutting Public Works First <br />Open Record evidence (dated July 31, 2024) that the applicant had not justified an exception <br />allowed under EC 9.6815(2)(h) to connect to Randy Lane. <br /> <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />As previously discussed under Appeal Issue #1, the Hearings Official found that the record closed for <br />new evidence on July 31, 2024, and rejected any new evidence the applicant attempted to enter <br />into the record after that date (during the second open record period). <br /> <br />Regarding evidence submitted by the applicant during the second open record period related to the <br />exception for street connectivity of Randy Lane, the Hearings Official addressed this issue on pages <br />24 through 26 of the decision, under approval criteria at EC 9.8325(4)(a), which requires compliance <br />with EC 9.6815, including subsection (2)(b), unless an exception can be granted under (2)(h): <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 18 of 159