found that: <br />While ... it is certainly possible that a different configuration could potentially create a <br />superior design, the applicant's engineers have established a credible basis for an <br />exception under EC 9.8615(2)(h)(2) to compliance with the street connectivity <br />standard in EC 9.8615(2)(b). <br />The applicant is requesting an exception to EC 9.6815(2)(b), pursuant to EC 9.6815(2)(h)2., due to <br />existing grades on the site. In the submitted materials dated August 14, 2024, the applicant <br />submitted Exhibit E, an annotated graphic from KPFF Engineering that shows existing topography <br />exceeding 20% slope and shows that a street connection to Randy Lane at the southeast corner of <br />the site will not meet current adopted street design standards, more specifically Section 2.05(J)(4) <br />of the City of Eugene's Public Improvement Design Standards (PIDS), as the proposed street grade <br />would exceed 20%. Public Works staff has reviewed this additional evidence and confirmed that <br />the exception to the street connectivity standards should be granted under EC9.6815(2)(h)2. <br />based on the applicant's evidence of the existing slope conditions. <br />Based on the findings above and Planning Commission's decision that the applicant's evidence <br />(submitted August 14, 2024) under Appeal Issue #1, as responsive to staff's proposed condition of <br />approval (submitted on July 31, 2024), will be considered by the Commission; the Planning <br />Commission hereby concludes that the applicant's engineers have demonstrated a credible basis <br />for an exception under the street connectivity standards in EC 9.6815(2)(h). <br />Appeal Issues #5 and #6: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred in concluding that the applicant failed to <br />show there is no "need" for the extension of Randy Lane to be developed to public road <br />standards. The applicant also argues that the Hearings Official erroneously rejected the <br />applicant's argument that the demand for a public road stub is not justified under constitutional <br />law standards. <br />Hearings Official's Decision <br />The Hearings Official addressed these issues on pages 19 through 21 of her decision, under the <br />approval standards for street connectivity at EC 9.6815(2)(a) and (b) which state: <br />(a) All streets and alleys shall be public unless the developer demonstrates that a public <br />street or alley is not necessary for compliance with this land use code or the street <br />connectivity standards of subparagraphs (b) through (f) of this subsection. <br />(b) The proposed development shall include street connections in the direction of all <br />existing or planned streets within 1/4 mile of the development site. The proposed <br />development shall also include street connections to any streets that abut, are <br />adjacent to, or terminate at the development site <br />On page 18 of the Hearings Official decision, she references the initial referral comments from Public <br />Works which determined that the applicant had demonstrated a basis for an exception to the <br />connectivity standards based upon the Tentative PUD approval criterion at EC 9.8325(8) (i.e., because <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 21 <br />