Eugene Hearing Official <br />April 6, 2018 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />EC 9.8220(2) invokes the street connectivity standards in EC 9.6815 <br />. EC 9.6815(2) requires: <br /> <br />(b) The proposed development shall include street connections in the direction <br />of all existing or planned streets within 1/4 mile of the development site. <br />The proposed development shall also include street connections to any <br />streets that abut, are adjacent to, or terminate at the development site. <br /> <br />(c) The proposed development shall include streets that extend to <br />undeveloped or partially developed land that is adjacent to the <br />development site or that is separated from the development site by a <br />drainage channel, transmission easement, survey gap, or similar property <br />condition. The streets shall be in locations that will enable adjoining <br /> <br /> <br />These sections require extending a street through the Staff Partition Tract to the east property <br />line, to provide a connection to the vacant property to the east and to the existing Floral Hill <br />Drive. The City may grant exceptions to this connectivity requirement if the applicant proves up <br />on certain facts. See EC 9.6815(2)(g). However, proving up for an exception is based on non- <br />clear and objective standards, as reflected in EC 9.6815(2)(g). The staff memo suggests that the <br />circumstances would justify not requiring street connectivity. However, that is guesswork about <br />how discretionary standards might be applied to the connectivity standards. <br />to a partition track with discretionary standards and say that it provides a clear and objective <br />alternative to review of a PUD. <br /> <br />In summary, partitioning the 1.48-acre tract of land identified by the staff into two or three lots to <br />allow dwellings to be built on those lots cannot be accomplished under the code, even if houses <br />could be built on the 37% slope of those lots. <br /> <br />Response to Opponents: Attorney Malone seems to argue that is OK for a site that is <br />entitled to the benefit of the Needed Housing Statute to not be developable at all under <br />clear and objective standards. The statute is plain; if the applicanproceed to some <br />PUD approval under clear and objective standards then the statute prohibits applying any <br />discretionary standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Malone endorses the opinion of the City Attorney and then adds a gloss. He understands <br />that a situation may arise where no PUD is approvable under clear and objective standards. <br />According to Mr. Malone, the statute only requires the opportunity to apply under clear and <br />objective standards; it does not guarantee that something must be approvable under clear and <br />objective standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Malone does not address explicitly the language in the statute that the applicant relies upon <br />to take discretionary standards off the table. That is the language in ORS 197.307(6): <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />