06 Public Record Pages 1021-1272

(d) Culverts shall not substantially increase or decrease water depth or flow rate conditions upstream or downstream from the culvert. (e ) The lnwer lin of W.11 c., il ;7ei'tQ shall 1yY=iPPt the strew `''r charu el. hPrl n_ ~ r halo t.l -°orlR . + p.+ V VtiU UL VS YY `S UUL. (t Culverts shall be the minimum length practicable, and till on top of the culvert shall have the iilii,iiTiu it n ntrrint mctble. IIL DECISION ON APPEAL The written appeal statement submitted by Bill Kloos of the Law Office of Bill Kloos PC, on behalf of the applicant and property owner, Walter-Kiefer Holdings LLC, included 16 appeal issues. Bill Kloos suUJequulitly UUn11r111eU that only llppeal 1JJ!!e s 1 till ULlgii t2 ile'U to I e addressed as the remaining appeal issues express the applicant's intentions or are not basis for the Hearings Official's conclusions at issue. Accordingly, the following findings of the Eugene Planning Commission address the assignments of error raised by the appellant under appeal issues 1 through 12. The appellant's assignments of error are grouped by subject and surrBnmarized in italics, with the Planning Corn-inission's findings addressing each. Appeal issues 1-6: The Hearinks Of cial erred with respect to the /l~TR Resource Site Boundary. 1 ne Planning Commission hods that the correct process ror delineating the goal D i w R Site boundary is + o. iU. a) Begin with a generalized delineation of the /WR Site boundary based on the applicable map of f-1-1 1Z vignila`".ant Goal Ripariani' oiriusors and Wi uli1`e Habitat Sites in Section dab oa Liie vUal ~ Water Resources Conservation Plan. b) If the delineation of the /WR Site boundary under (a) is not precise enough to determine compliance with applicable criteria and standardsi or is otherwise unsatisfactory, the next step is to arrive at a more precise depiction of the resource site boundary by relating the applicable text of the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan to site-specific evidence regarding the site's condition in'2vOJ (when the Vitt adopted the Plan). this iiiay result in a site boundary determination that is noticeably different from that in (a). The Planning Commission does not find error with the Hearings Official's reliance on the Goal 5 Plan slaps as he Stal ling point to UeLenfnine the / vV R Site Doundary. lice -riannin t-Ui1111iiS51011 UISU IMUS no 7 7_ T7 i:- i14"cr'al'sfurther Chat considered the applicable "Tiar One" Criteria l en ;~rilr file _'ieai ISgs ~111i Viai J anal ~sis L11L co11 JiC.l+ liv ltL it Section lI of the Goal ` Water Resources Conservation Plan (Criteria 3, 4, and 8). However, the Planning Commission does find error with respect to the hearings official's evaluation and conclusion regarding the Goal 5 Plan criteria. With respect to Criterion 8, the Hearings Official addressed the extent of the floodplain, but not the extent of "native plant communities" within the floodplain as that criterion requires. With respect to Criterion 4's reference to "undeveloped natural areas that are contiguous with a water feature", the Planning Commission finds that on this site, the "natural" area is the riparian corridor, and its supporting biological and hydrological systems, rather than the undeveloped grassy area surrounding the water feature considered by the Hearings Official. As a result of these errors in the Hearings Official's evaluation, the Planning Commission reached the conclusion (contrary to that reached 1 The delineation under (a) may be sufficient for purposes of a specific development proposal. This may be true where it is clear that the entire site boundary is located within the setback area (doesn't go beyond the setback and is located above the top of high bank or line of ordinary high water from which the setback is applied) and the proposal does not propose any adjustment nr wnrk within the setback. It also may he true when a proposal clearly will not impact an area near the cite or the setback. Al lsrrera ,VUPz i T 07-5 & SDR 08-2) November 2008 page age 1174