The Hearings Official incorporated these constitutional findings and proposed conditions into her <br />decision by reference. The Planning Commission hereby adopts and affirms the constitutional <br />findings and determines that the findings establish the constitutionally required nexus and rough <br />proportionality to support the condition requiring the dedication of public right-of-way and <br />construction of Randy Lane to public street standards. The Planning Commission notes that the <br />findings were based on the assumption that there would be no condition of approval requiring the <br />applicant to connect the western portion of Randy Lane shown on the applicant's site plans to the <br />existing portion of Randy Lane to the east. The applicant's appeal argument, which seems to imply <br />that the exception to connectivity would also obviate the need for the construction of Randy Lane <br />as a public street, is without merit, as the findings clearly demonstrate the need for a public street <br />system with public amenities for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and to ensure all residents <br />of the new PUD with access to Videra Park to the south of Randy Lane. <br />Based on all the above, the Planning Commission hereby affirms the Hearing Official's finding that <br />EC 9.6815(2) requires that Randy Lane be constructed to public street standards (but does not <br />require connection to the existing portion of Randy Lane to the east due to the street connectivity <br />exception affirmed above). The Planning Commission also finds that the proposed conditions are <br />necessary to ensure that: the applicant provides an updated site plan depicting the proposed <br />extension of Randy Lane as a public street; dedicates a 40-foot public right of way; and provides an <br />irrevocable petition for public improvements. Those conditions, with minor revisions for clarity <br />based on these appeal proceedings, are adopted by the Planning Commission and included at the <br />end of this Final Order along with all other conditions being imposed as part of the decision to <br />approve the subject applications. <br />Appeal Issue #7: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred in requiring compliance with the <br />requirement for a geotechnical certification at EC 9.6710(6) due to the applicant's failure to <br />carry its burden of proof that the site is included in the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br />Hearings Official's Decision <br />The Hearings Official addressed this issue on page 35 of her decision. Similar to EC 9.8325(3), <br />which requires that the applicant either that establish that the subject property is included on the <br />City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory or demonstrate compliance with Tree Preservation and <br />Removal Standards, EC 9.8325(5)(d) requires that the applicant either that establish that the <br />subject property is included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory or provide a Geological <br />and Geotechnical Analysis of the site. The Hearings Official determined that the applicant had not <br />established that (with the exception of the protected upland stream corridor) the entire subject <br />property is included in the City's Goal 5 inventory; therefore, the applicant was required to <br />demonstrate compliance with the requirements of EC 9.8325(5)(d) for a Geological and <br />Geotechnical Analysis of the site and that the applicant had not provided the required analysis. <br />Summary of Applicant's Argument <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred in requiring a geotechnical certification <br />because the entire site is included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The applicant <br />argues that the site is depicted on Figure H-2 in the Scenic Sites Working Paper, which is a part of <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 23 <br />