Hearings Official Ken Helm <br />November 10, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />that there are unmarked portions of the development site that also exceed 20% slope. <br />Planning staff proposes a condition of approval for this criterion that relies on the applicant's <br />site map. Because of the site map's failure to mark all portions of the development site that <br />exceed 20% slope, such reliance is unfounded. The condition of approval should be modified to <br />restrict grading on all portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope, whether <br />or not the site map shows the applicable portions of the development site. <br />EC 9.8325(6)(a) <br />"The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all of <br />the following: (a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public <br />Ways (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below)." <br />The applicant makes some generalized statement that Vivian Way would be too steep to <br />develop. Similarly vague, the Staff Report indicates that Planning staff contacted an unnamed <br />Public Works staff who apparently agreed that Vivian Way would be too steep to develop. <br />None of these statements are supported by any evidence in the record. Moreover, none of this <br />actually goes to the criteria for an exception under EC 9.6815(2)(g)(2.)(a.). <br />EC 9.6815(2)(c) provides the street connectivity standard at issue by stating: <br />"(c) The proposed development shall include streets that extend to undeveloped <br />or partially developed land that is adjacent to the development site or that is <br />separated from the development site by a drainage channel, transmission <br />easement, survey gap, or similar property condition. The streets shall be in <br />locations that will enable adjoining properties to connect to the proposed <br />development's street system." <br />EC 9.6815(2)(g) then provides a mechanism for an "exception" to this standard by stating: <br />"In the context of a Type II or Type III land use decision, the city shall grant an <br />exception to the standards in subsections (2)(b), (c) or (d) if the applicant <br />demonstrates that any proposed exceptions are consistent with either <br />subsection 1. or 2. Below:" <br />EC 9.6815(2)(g)(2.) then provides the relevant standards for the applicable exemption by <br />stating: <br />"The applicant demonstrates that a connection cannot be made because of the <br />existence of one or more of the following conditions: <br />a. Physical conditions preclude development of the connecting street. Such <br />conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography or likely impact to <br />