Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

V. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue l: Public wastewater services are not available to the entire project. Since EC 9.724(2)(a) requires that public services and facilities be available, this failure regarding wastewater services violates the code's approval criteria. The Commission should find that the Hearings Official erred in finding that public wastewater services are available to the proposed development, should reverse the Hearings Official's Decision, and should deny the application. EC 9.724(2)(x) requires as a condition for approval that public services and facilities are available to the site. The Public Works Referral Response specifically addressed the availability of public wastewater service to the development and found that public wastewater service is not available to the entire proposed development. Public Works Referral Response, p.2. The Response noted that "[t]he applicant proposes connecting a portion of the development to the public wastewater system located within a Public Utility Easement that crosses the southwest portion of the site". Id. p.2. (Emphasis added). The remainder of the development will need to discharge wastewater at Willamette Street. However, the Response noted that "[plublic wastewater service is not currently available in Willamette Street adjacent to the site". (Emphasis added). Thus, the application does not comply with the requirement of EC 9.724(2)(a) that public services are available. The Public Works Referral Response also noted that "Willamette Street was resurfaced in 2011 and is subject to a street cut moratorium". Id. p.5. This moratorium therefore prevents the construction of an extension under the street to reach a manhole across Willamette Street at 40`h Ave. to connect with the public wastewater service. In addition, the applicant, in his Hearing Memorandum, acknowledged that "the sanitary discharge from the development needs to get to Willamette Street, somewhat north of the project boundary. Hence, it must traverse outside of Zone 6 [the 15.8 acres] and onto the future LDR property to the north". P.8. However the applicant is prohibited under the 1995 CUP and the 1998 Conditional Use Agreement from accessing utilities on other parts of the cemetery. Thus, the applicant cannot make the commitment required by EC 9.724(2)(a)(2) to provide the necessary private wastewater connection. Evidence of such a commitment is necessary before the Hearings Official can make an of n-native finding that wastewater services are available. The Hearings Official noted that he was faced with "substantial amounts of testimony" from a number of people regarding various public facilities and services, and dismissed all of the arguments on the ground that they related to the adequacy of the facilities and services, which is no longer a proper criterion. Decision of the Hearings Official, p.5. However, the Public Works Referral Response makes it clear that the issue regarding wastewater service goes to the availability, not the adequacy, of the service. In sum, public wastewater service is not available to the entire project. Therefore the Commission should find that the applicant has failed to comply with the approval criteria of 5