<br /> <br /> 21 <br /> <br />portion of Randy Lane to the east as demonstrated in the condition requiring the dedication of <br />public right-of-way for Randy Lane to its terminus. The applicant’s appeal argument, which seems to <br />imply that the exception to connectivity would also obviate the need for the extension of Randy <br />Lane as a public street, is without merit, as the findings clearly demonstrate the need for a public <br />street system with public amenities for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and to ensure all <br />residents of the new PUD with access to Videra Park to the south of Randy Lane. <br /> <br />Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the Hearing Official’s finding that EC 9.6815(2) <br />requires that Randy Lane be extended as a public street (but not connect to the east) and to impose <br />the proposed conditions requiring an updated site plan depicting the proposed extension of Randy <br />Lane as a public street, dedication of public right of way, and an irrevocable petition for public <br />improvements. <br /> <br />Appeal Issue #7: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred in requiring compliance with the requirement <br />for a geotechnical certification at EC 9.6710(6) due to the applicant’s failure to carry its burden of <br />proof that the site is on an acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />The Housing/Clear and Objective PUD approval criterion at EC 9.8325(5)(d) requires compliance <br />with the geotechnical requirements at EC 9.6710(6). EC 9.6710(6) states that “unless exempt under <br />9.6710(3)” compliance with EC 9.6710(6) must be met. One of the exemptions in EC 9.6710(3) is for <br />activities on land included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The applicant relied on this <br />exemption and did not provide evidence demonstrating compliance with EC 9.8325(5)(d). The <br />Hearings Official addressed this issue on page 35 of the decision. <br /> <br />Consistent with her findings regarding compliance with EC 9.8325(3) the Hearing Official determined <br />that neither the City nor the applicant has provided documentation to establish that, with the <br />exception of the protected upland stream corridor, the property is a part of the City’s Goal 5 <br />inventory. Therefore, the Hearings Official determined that no exemption to EC 9.6710(6) is <br />warranted, and the applicant was required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of EC <br />9.8325(5)(d) for a Geological and Geotechnical Analysis of the site. <br /> <br />Summary of Applicant’s Argument <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred by requiring the geotechnical certification <br />mandated by EC 9.6710(6) because the entire site is on the acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The <br />applicant argues that the site is depicted on Figure H-2 in the Scenic Sites Working Paper, which is a <br />part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The applicant further argues that the City, not the <br />applicant, has the burden to show that it is clear what constitutes its Goal 5 inventory for Scenic <br />Sites. In the event the Planning Commission finds the entire site is not on the Scenic Sites inventory, <br />the applicant will request an opportunity to provide the geotechnical certification in an ORS 197.522 <br />proceeding. <br /> <br /> <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 23 of 159