documentation from EWEB ensuring adequate water service. <br />The appellant also argues that the Hearings Official erred by accepting the, "Owner <br />Commitment to Contribute to Cost of Water Infrastructure" document as sufficient to <br />demonstrate compliance with EC 9.8320(7)(c), and ignoring NRC concerns about this document. <br />They believe the document contains many flaws that render uncertain the satisfaction of the <br />obligation it purports to create (see Appeal Statement, pages 23 and 24 for detailed issues with <br />the document). <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />There was no error on part of the Hearings Official in accepting the "Owner Commitment to <br />Contribute to Cost of Water Infrastructure" document and finding this written statement is <br />sufficient to demonstrate compliance with EC 9.8320(7)(c). The necessity to upgrade the <br />existing water system and the cost sharing of the design and construction of new water <br />facilities is a commitment between the property owner and EWEB and not under jurisdiction by <br />the City of Eugene except to ensure that adequate water service is made available prior to <br />need. In order to demonstrate compliance with this code criterion, it is only necessary for the <br />applicant to demonstrate compliance with at least one of the three listed future availability <br />requirements in EC 9.8320(7)(a, b or c). The applicant submitted the above described document <br />and staff received email confirmation on March 20, 2018 from EWEB stating, "EWEB has <br />reviewed the attached Owner Commitment to Fund Water Infrastructure and find it acceptable" <br />(Capital Hill PUD Index of Record, #47, pages 1469 to 1473, email and letter from Wallace <br />McCullough (EWEB), received March 20, 2018). Prior to final subdivision approval, the applicant <br />will need to provide documentation from EWEB ensuring adequate water service, and a <br />condition of approval was imposed to ensure the standard is met. <br />Of note, the Planning Commission rejected items (f) and (1) listed under Appeal Issue 23, <br />determining that they constituted new issues not raised before the hearings official. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Appeal Issue #24: EC 9.8320(7)(c) Adequate public facilities and services are available <br />to the site. The Hearings Official erred in the determination that adequate public <br />facilities and services are available to the site, in regard to the existing street system <br />serving the PUD. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 31 <br />