Eugene Hearings Official <br />June 29, 2016 <br />Page 4 <br />In this allegation of error, the VRI at best shows a conflict in city law between the requirement to <br />meet specific city standards for onsite storm water facilities, which must see the light of day, and <br />the general requirement in the city code that utilities on the site must be placed underground. <br />VRI notes that no adjustment has been requested. <br />Mr. Connor's letter is vague as to what portion of the storm drainage system he is referring to. <br />The only portion of the storm drainage system which could be considered "aboveground", are <br />the filtration planter boxes shown around the building and parking areas as shown on Sheet <br />C140. The details for filtration planter boxes are labeled "Filtration Planter, Typical Details" on <br />Sheet C500 in the application documents. <br />These details show a pipe connected from the building which he seems to be arguing constitutes <br />"daylighting" of the storm drainage facilities. If this theory were to hold, the City of Eugene <br />would have to modify their storm water code to restrict the use of this and other low impact <br />development techniques which are the preferred method of dealing with storm water treatment. <br />The resolution of this issue is found in the rules for interpreting the city code, not in the seeking <br />of an adjustment. The zoning code is to be interpreted using the same rules as for interpreting <br />statutes. ORS Chapter 174 is a source for relevant rules. Here the answer is found in ORS <br />174.020(2) which says: "When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is <br />paramount to the former so that a particular intent controls a general intent that is inconsistent <br />with the particular intent." Here the undergrounding rule is the general rule. The city's painfully <br />detailed standards for storm water collection and treatment are the more particular rules. The <br />Application follows the particular rules. <br />Valley River Inn Issue 4: EC 9.2173(4)(a) - Off-Street Parking <br />The operative standard is: "(a) No off-street parking shall be located between the front facade of <br />any new building(s) and the primary adjacent street." <br />Only the "primary adjacent street" is at issue here, but the code does not define the phrase. <br />Hence it is ambiguous. VRI covers its bases by alleging failure to comply with respect to each <br />street. The Applicant is seeking an adjustment to this standard, regardless of which street is <br />determined by LUBA to be the primary adjacent street. <br />Applicable Eugene Code Sections: <br />9.2173 Commercial Zone Development Standards - Large Commercial Facilities. <br />(4) Off-Street Parking. <br />(a) No off-street parking shall be located between the front facade of any new <br />building(s) and the primary adjacent street. <br />