3/27/2026 <br /> <br />3 <br />As the final PUD plan does not conform to the approved tentative PUD plan, the Applicant has failed to <br />demonstrate compliance with EC 9.8365(1), and therefore, the Decision should be reversed and the PDF <br />application denied. <br />Similarly, point 2 of the Fire Marshal’s comments notes: <br />2. Street widths of 21 feet with parking on one side appear to meet City of Eugene engineering <br />standards for local public access However, Eugene Springfield Fire strongly recommends following <br />the 2022 Eugene Fire Code, Section 503.2.1 which requires 20 feet clear width with no parking <br />allowed on both sides withing that 20-foot width for these private streets. “NO PARKING FIRE <br />LANE” signage shall be posted on both sides of the Randy Lane, Tambour Lane, and Tambour <br />Court (2022 Eugene Fire Code Section D103.6). <br />Point 4 of the Fire Marshal’s comments states: <br />4. Several lots show access to be provided by 10-and 14-foot-wide utility and access easements. This <br />width will not be adequate for the required fire apparatus access requirements of 20’ minimum. <br />(Emphasis added.) Access requirements will be evaluated at the time of building permit submittal, <br />when such access is proposed (2022 Eugene Fire Code 503.2.1). <br />Each of the Fire Marshal’s quoted comments contradict the Decision and support the public comments <br />arguing that the development plan is a fire hazard and poses a threat to public safety. The roads and, in <br />particular, the driveways are inadequate for access by fire apparatus. These flaws are especially grave in view <br />of the fact that the entire project is essentially designed as a cul de sac and naturally existing fire-resistant <br />features of the property, such as the majority of the wetlands and Oregon oak trees, are proposed to be <br />removed. These deficiencies must be addressed and rectified. <br />In sum, the Decision erred in finding compliance with EC 9.8365(1) as the Applicant has not carried <br />their burden of proof by providing evidence of compliance, instead providing evidence of impermissibly <br />changing the approved tentative PUD. <br /> <br />III. Standards Review (SDR 25-02) <br /> <br />A. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with EC 9.4980(4)(a)