Eugene Hearings Official <br />June 29, 2016 <br />Page 8 <br />Furthermore, if the city did regulate vision clearance areas at driveways, the visual clearance <br />areas would need to be imposed on adjacent property which the applicant does not own or <br />control. This is demonstrated in Exhibit B submitted on June 8 during the open record period. <br />The graphic shows how an AASHTO vision clearance triangle, and vision clearance triangles <br />used by others jurisdictions would be applied. <br />Valley River Inn Issue 7: EC 9.6792 - Storm Water Quality <br />The first part of this complaint alleges failure to provide information documenting certain <br />characteristics of the site and that storm water runoff can be accommodated on site. The second <br />part of this complaint alleges failure to include information justifying using off-site storm water <br />quality facilities. <br />These allegations of shortcomings are based on VRI's review of the initial submittal to the City, <br />not the completed submittal after the city's completeness review process. The full storm water <br />submittal was submitted with the April 4, 2016, completeness review submittal from MSS INC <br />Engineering. Specifically, the full storm water report was Exhibit L to that submittal. That <br />report contains the information that VRI alleges is missing. Based on the completed submission <br />the Staff found compliance with the storm water standards. <br />The full geotechnical report Mr. Connors indicated was missing was provided as Appendix E to <br />the Storm Water Report submitted as part of the completeness review. The ability to comply with <br />the City of Eugene storm water design standards is clearly outlined in the narrative and the <br />supporting calculations of the Storm Water Report. <br />Valley River Inn Issue 8: EC 9.6792 - Water Resources Conservation Zone: Fate of the 32" <br />Black Cottonwood Tree <br />Here the VRI objects to proposed removal of the 32" Black Cottonwood tree located south of the <br />building. The complaint is that the application materials do not contain the magic words needed <br />to justify removal. <br />This issue can be resolved with a condition that drops the proposed removal of this tree. The <br />Applicant's post-hearing C1 is a graphic that shows the tree in relation to the building and <br />calculates the percentage of the critical root zone that will be impacted by the improvements. <br />The critical root zone impact is 28%, which is under the 30% standard for a technical take of the <br />tree. <br />Deleting the proposed removal of this tree from this development proposal will allow its fate to <br />be determined at a future time, when the development is done and arborists can review the <br />situation when temperatures in the neighborhood cool down a bit. <br />