<br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3) 20 <br />has not pointed to a standard that requires a nonconnecting road must be built to public road <br />standards” and argues: <br /> <br />“[The fact that there are other nonconnecting streets in this project that do not need to be <br />built to public road standards, but the City wants this nonconnecting road built to public <br />road standards, shows that the City is using a discretionary baton to direct the design, not <br />a clear and objective baton. The statutes require clear and objective standards and <br />conditions for housing. (ORS 197.307(4). That precludes the City from imposing <br />conditions in its discretion.” <br /> <br />(Bill Kloos August 14, 2024 Applicant’s Written Response Testimony, page 16.) <br /> <br />EC 9.6815(2)(a) clearly and objective requires that “All streets and alleys shall be public unless <br />the developer demonstrates that a public street or alley is not necessary for compliance with this <br />land use code or the street connectivity standards of subparagraphs (b) through (f) of this <br />subsection.” The City Public Works staff agreed that the applicant has demonstrated that its it is <br />not necessary for its two new streets, both of which begin and terminate within the proposed <br />development, to be public streets. In contrast, Randy Lane IS an existing public street at both <br />ends of the proposed development and, based on the Public Works staff’s evaluation, the <br />applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the EC 9.6815(2)(b) through (f) standards is not <br />necessary. <br /> <br />The applicant is essentially asserting that because the City is addressing each proposed street on <br />its own merits – and evaluating them based on their own unique characteristics to determine <br />whether the applicant has met its burden to NOT develop all three streets as public – it is <br />somehow improperly asserting its “discretionary baton.” To the contrary, EC 9.6815 mandates <br />that the applicant – and the City – apply the code requirements separately for each proposed <br />street. The applicant’s argument that because it has evaluated each proposed street separately <br />City’s application of EC 9.6815(2) indicates a “discretionary baton’ is without merit. <br /> <br />Nor is there any merit to the applicant’s suggestion that by imposing conditions necessary for <br />Randy Lane to be developed to public street standards, the City is improperly “imposing <br />conditions in its discretion.” The conditions proposed would be necessary to develop the street to <br />City standards. The applicant has not demonstrated that the City’s proposed conditions are <br />discretionary. <br /> <br />Finally, the applicant argues that “the demand for public right of way dedication and <br />improvements is an exaction that has not been and cannot be justified under the Nollan and <br />Dolan tests.” (Bill Kloos August 14, 2024 Applicant’s Written Response Testimony, page 16.) In <br />his final rebuttal, the applicant’s attorney extends that argument, asserting that “exactions are <br />only allowed in the context of discretionary applications that the City may deny. The nature of an <br />application under clear and objective standards is that it may not be denied.” (Bill Kloos August <br />21, 2024 Applicant’s Rebuttal Argument, page 6.) <br /> <br />EC 9.6815(2) explicitly requires that “streets and alleys SHALL be public” unless the developer <br />establishes that it is not necessary to do so in order to comply with EC 9.6815(2) (b) through <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 52 of 159