2/16/2024 <br /> <br />3 <br />north of the property, boring under the existing sidewalk and <br />driveway apron in the public ROW, to a secondary box on our <br />property. See attached email from EWEB with a preliminary <br />drawing, and the Utility Plan which has also been reviewed by <br />EWEB. <br />2. Water: EWEB has confirmed by phone that the proposed Utility <br />Plan is viable to provide water service to the new homes. <br />3. Sewer: The attached sewer profile shows adequate elevation of <br />the sewer main (at Grant Street) for a gravity drain system from <br />the new homes. City staff has confirmed by phone that the <br />existing home’s sewer connection is likely adequate to service all <br />planned homes, and if not, a new connection can be made. <br />4. Stormwater: Plans currently under permit review (see attached <br />conceptual Utility Plan) include filtration rain gardens per Eugene <br />stormwater code. Due to the remand of the Eugene middle <br />housing code, the Eugene stormwater code is not in effect and this <br />design may be changed to provide for rain and foundation drains <br />running directly to a curb weep via 5-foot utility easement along <br />the north side of the property. <br />5. Telecommunications lines for the new dwellings will be delivered <br />along the northern utility easement, either through aerial or <br />underground service conduit.” <br /> <br />A conclusory statement as to compliance without evidence is insufficient to demonstrate compliance <br />with a land use provision. Furthermore, the specifics cited by the Applicant either are not in the record or <br />simply fail to evidence compliance as asserted by the Applicant. <br />The issues with the electrical plan and the lack of the cited Utility Plan are explained above. <br />Importantly, the evidence from EWEB cited by the Applicant contradicts the Applicant’s assertions. There is <br />no evidence of EWEB reviewing the oft-mentioned but never produced Utility Plan and the preliminary <br />drawing has contradictory information as explained above. EWEB has not provided a design for providing <br />access to the buildings, and neither has the Applicant. <br />As to water, a purported phone conversation is hearsay at best and definitively not substantial evidence <br />demonstrating compliance. <br />As to sewer, a purported phone conversation is hearsay at best and definitively not substantial evidence <br />demonstrating compliance. Additionally, the Applicant mentions an attached elevation of the sewer profile, <br />however, no such elevation is in the application materials. As for the comment regarding potentially adjusting