<br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3) 17 <br /> <br />EC 9.8325(4) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through <br />compliance with all of the following: <br /> <br />(a) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other Public <br />Ways. <br /> <br /> EC 9.6805 Dedication of Public Ways <br /> <br />Finding: EC 9.6805 allows the City to require dedication of public ways for bicycle and/or <br />pedestrian use as well as for streets and alleys, provided the City demonstrates consistency with <br />constitutional requirements. Streets dedicated to the public must conform to the adopted right-of- <br />way map and EC Table 9.6870. <br /> <br />As discussed below in finding regarding EC 9.6815(2)(a), the City has recommended that the <br />applicant’s proposed extension of Randy Lane comply with the requirement for public streets <br />and has included findings demonstrating consistency with constitutional requirements. Subject to <br />a condition requiring such dedication, the application would satisfy this standard. <br /> <br /> EC 9.6810 Block Length <br /> <br />Finding: As discussed below in findings regarding EC 9.6815(2)(a), the City has demonstrated <br />that Randy Lane must be developed as a public street, which requires compliance with the EC <br />9.6810 Block Length standard. EC 9.6810 requires that public street block lengths shall not <br />exceed 600 feet, unless an exception is granted. Developed as a public street, Randy Lane would <br />have a block length of approximately 595 feet, as measured from its intersection with Blacktail <br />Drive, in compliance with EC 9.6810. <br /> <br /> EC 9.6815 Connectivity for Streets <br /> <br />This standard addresses the dedication, location, and design of public streets and accessways, <br />and standards for private streets. <br /> <br /> EC 9.6815(1) Purpose and Intent <br /> <br />Finding: EC 9.6815(1) describes the numerous objectives of the connectivity standards. Several <br />residents of the surrounding area provided oral and written testimony expressing their concern <br />that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with those objectives. In particular they assert that <br />as proposed, the development does not satisfy EC 6815(1)(a), which states that the standards are <br />established to ensure that “Streets are designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency <br />fire and medical service vehicles”; that they are not designed to “reduce travel distance, promote <br />the use of alternative modes and provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency <br />services, and provide for more even dispersal of traffic” as described in EC 9.6815(1)(d); that <br />they will not “meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking and bicycling as <br />transportation modes” as described in EC 9.6815(1)(e); and that the street design is not <br />“responsive to topography and other natural features” in a way that “avoids or minimizes impacts <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 49 of 159