EC 9.6815(2)(d) states, “Secondary access for fire and emergency medical vehicles consistent with <br />EC 9.6870 is required.” The standards at EC 9.6870 only require right-of-way and paving widths. <br />The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official erred by imposing requirements from the <br />Eugene Fire Code as part of the Tentative PUD decision because those requirements are not <br />supported by EC 9.6815(2)(d). The requirement for No-Parking Fire Lane signage and other Eugene <br />Fire Code-related requirements will be addressed separately at the time of building permits. <br /> <br />Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission hereby modifies the Hearings Official’s <br />decision and finds the standard for secondary access is met for fire and emergency medical <br />vehicles, consistent with EC 9.6870. The Planning Commission reverses the portion of the Hearings <br />Official’s decision imposing a requirement for No-Parking Fire Lane signage as a condition of <br />approval since it is unnecessary to meet the relevant approval standard at EC 9.6815(2)(d). <br />However, the Planning Commission notes that Fire Code requirements will nonetheless (and <br />appropriately) be addressed at the time of building permits. <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 <br />First Open Record evidence (dated July 31, 2024) that the applicant had not justified an <br />exception 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 Planning Commission reverses the portion of <br />the Hearings Official’s decision rejecting new evidence the applicant attempted to enter into the <br />record during the second open record period. The Planning Commission will therefore consider <br />the evidence submitted by the applicant on August 14, 2024, that is relevant to this appeal issue. <br /> <br />The Hearings Official addressed this appeal issue on pages 24 through 26 of her decision, under <br />approval criteria at EC 9.8325(4)(a), which requires compliance with EC 9.6815, including <br />subsection (2)(b), unless an exception can be granted under (2)(h). The relevant street <br />connectivity standards at EC 9.6815(2) are as follows: <br /> <br />(b) The proposed development shall include street connections in the direction of all <br />existing or planned streets within 1/4 mile of the development site. The proposed <br />development shall also include street connections to any streets that abut, are <br />adjacent to, or terminate at the development site. <br /> <br />(h) For applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval <br />criteria, exceptions to street connectivity standards may be granted if one of the <br />following conditions exists: <br />1. Existing building(s) on the development site or on land abutting the <br />development site and under separate ownership obstruct the extension of the <br />planned street. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “building” is defined as a <br />structure designed and used as a place of occupancy. For the purposes of this <br />subparagraph, “building” does not include a shed, carport, detached garage, <br />accessory building, or other structure designed and used solely for storage or <br />Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 25 of 42