commitment to "provide private services and facilities," is not a tenable option when the plan <br />and code require "public facilities." The applicant sought to comply with option (c), providing a <br />"written commitment by the applicant or other party to provide for offsetting all added public <br />costs or early commitment of public funds made necessary by development, submitted on a form <br />acceptable to the city manager." <br />The operative requirement in EC 9.8320(7)(c) is a form of financial commitment "acceptable to <br />the city manager." The applicant requested a copy of the form that would be used by the City <br />Manager as a public record; the city responded that it did not have such a form. See the public <br />record request and response, which is Exhibit Q to the Schirmer Satre Letter of March 21 the <br />first open record period. The applicant then approached EWEB and made a financial <br />commitment to pay its proportionate share of the capital costs of off-site improvements needed to <br />supply adequate water to the site. That commitment, signed by the owners, is Exhibit R to the <br />Schirmer Satre Letter of March 21. The operative language in that commitment is: <br />1. The language of Condition 12 proposed by the City is acceptable to the <br />Owners and Owners commit to providing financial guarantee ensuring water <br />service to each lot of the approved PUD in a form acceptable to EWEB. <br />2. The Owners hereby commit to pay their proportionate share of <br />EWEB's capital costs for off-site improvements needed to provide adequate water <br />service to the proposed development. <br />3. The Owners commit to make that payment required by #2 for off-site <br />improvements when requested by EWEB. <br />4. The Owners agree that EWEB may, if necessary, include the amount of <br />the payment due under 2. above in the bond or other financial guarantee that is <br />anticipated in Condition 12 above and is also required by ORS 92.090(4)(b) in <br />conjunction with final platting. <br />The applicant also solicited from EWEB an affirmative concurrence that the owner's <br />commitment was in a form acceptable to EWEB. That concurrence, signed by EWEB's Water <br />Engineering Supervisor, is Exhibit S to the Schirmer Satre Letter of March 21. <br />The applicant believes it has strictly complied with the showing of adequacy of the water supply <br />required by EC 9.8320(7)(c). The applicant could not make the commitment of funds on a form <br />"acceptable to the city manager" because the city manager could not provide one. The applicant <br />then went to another branch of the City the city arm that actually provides water infrastructure <br />and supply and made the commitment in a form acceptable to it. <br />In the second open record' period the opposition took issue with the form of commitment used <br />with EWEB. See March 30 email from Susan Hoffman. Hoffman points out that the owner <br />commitment does not cover the whole site because it does not list Tax Lot 201. This is seizing <br />APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018 <br />