system that provides an acceptable destination for stormwater runoff'. Id. p.3. (Emphasis <br />added). The applicant has not revised his plans to address this issue. <br />The Hearings Official erred in failing to address this issue as an approval issue under EC <br />9.724(2)(a)(2). The Commission should reverse the approval on the ground that the <br />applicant failed to comply with this approval criterion and deny the application. <br />The Private Street - Cathedral Way <br />The Public works Referral Response noted that: <br />Based on ITE Category 220/Apartments, the development is expected to generate <br />over 1100 daily trips on average. With an estimated Average Daily Trips greater than <br />750, the private street would be categorized as a Medium Volume local street. The <br />applicant has not provided sufficient information for Public Works staff to evaluate <br />whether the proposed private street would meet the local street standards as <br />described in the Eugene Arterial & Collector Street Plan dated November, 1999... . <br />As noted above, the proposed alignment does not appear to meet the maximum <br />grade requirements (15% with up to 200-foot lengths of grades up to 20%, but no <br />intersections or driveway access in areas with grades above 15%). As depicted on <br />the plans, the proposed street also lacks the required sidewalk of at least 3 feet in <br />width along one side and meeting ADA standards. The materials also lack any <br />information about sight distance requirements or traffic controls that might be <br />needed at the proposed intersections. At a minimum, the applicant would need to <br />submit further evidence that the proposed private street can feasibly be constructed <br />to meet the local street standards". Id. p.3. (Emphasis added). <br />Due to concerns about safety of egress from the proposed street on to Willamette St., the <br />applicant did have a traffic engineer measure the sight distances from the proposed street, <br />and the sight distances were met. Technical Memorandum of Dan Haga, dated July 6, 2016, <br />p. 2. However, the applicant has not submitted any other information to address the Public <br />Works findings. <br />The Hearings Official did not address this issue under EC 9.724(2) (a) (2), but did address it <br />later in his decision in regard to the ingress and egress requirements of EC 9.724(2)(b)(3). In <br />that discussion, he agreed with a staff report statement "that Cathedral Way may be too <br />steep in certain places, but that such problems can be resolved through conditions of <br />approval". Decision of the Hearings Official, p. 10. He also stated that the insufficiency of <br />evidence regarding compliance with the 1999 road provisions could also be resolved through <br />conditions of approval. Id. <br />However, under EC 9.724(2)(a)(2) the Hearings Official must base an affirmative finding <br />upon evidence that there is a commitment to provide private services and facilities, in this <br />instance a street, acceptable to the appropriate public agencies. The Hearings Official's <br />decision ignored the Public Works finding that the applicant's information and evidence on <br />the street is insufficient to allow an evaluation and to demonstrate that the proposed street is <br />feasible. <br />9 <br />