New Search
is needed. (I- 1061). As we read EWEB's letter, it is clear that EWEB will use the Applicant's <br /> proposed phasing plan in order to make adjustments to its capital improvement program so that <br /> water service will be available prior to its being needed. However, EWEB was clear in stressing that <br /> it was not bound by the Applicant's phasing plan and that the Applicant (or any developer) would <br /> always have the option of stepping in and paying for the necessary water service improvement in the <br /> event EWEB is not in a position to make it at the particular time the developer wants to proceed. <br /> We believe EWEB's practice of providing water service to newly - developing areas inside <br /> the city limits and urban growth boundary is both practical and efficient. It is consistent with our <br /> interpretation of EC 9.512(6)(d) for determining when services can be found to be available to a site. <br /> For large sites, like the subject proposal, it is reasonable and prudent for both the developer and the <br /> public to plan for their development in phases over a period of time. Our interpretation of when <br /> services are available to a PUD site assumes that a phasing plan will allow service providers, like <br /> EWEB and the City, to fine -tune their service delivery plans so that capital expenditures will meet <br /> actual system needs. <br /> For these reasons, we deny LHVC's assignment of error. EWEB can provide water service <br /> VVVV to the project in a timely and efficient manner. <br /> 4. LHVC Appeal Issue 18: "The Hearings Official erred in ignoring the <br /> condition in the ODOT road approach permit which specifically <br /> prohibits any development other than that of RAM Construction from <br /> being covered by the permit (DHO, Page 42). The Hearings Official also <br /> erred in finding that ODOT lacks authority to limit access to the <br /> Glenwood interchange. OAR 734.50 and ORS 374.005 specifically grant <br /> ODOT full legal authority over any and all connections to the state <br /> highway system. ODOT may revoke the permit referenced by the <br /> Hearings Official in the event that the City fails to abide by the <br /> conditions of that permit which was duly signed by an official of the <br /> City. - Eugene Code 9.512(6)(d) is not satisfied." <br /> This issue is essentially the same one that is raised by ODOT in both of its assignments of <br /> error. The Hearings Official found that the Applicant's proposed site plan and traffic improvements <br /> are adequate to support approval of the proposed development. The Hearings Official further found <br /> that ODOT did not submit any evidence to refute the traffic impact analyses of the Applicant. The <br /> Hearings Official is correct. Neither ODOT nor the LHVC have provided anything to substantiate <br /> their allegations that additional road improvements to the Glenwood Interchange will be needed to <br /> accommodate full build -out of the PUD. <br /> Similarly, neither ODOT nor LHVC provided any evidence or precedent that establishes <br /> ODOT's authority to demand that the City adopt a condition that requires the Applicant t apply for <br /> EXHIBIT "A" - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - <br /> 13 <br />