Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

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