Eugene Hearings Official <br />June 29, 2016 <br />Page 9 <br />Valley River Inn Issue 9: EC 9.8440 - Site Review and Tree Preservation <br />The VRI complaint here alleges failure to demonstrate compliance with the standard in EC <br />9.8440(2)(b), which requires: <br />"Site Review Approval Criteria-General. The planning director shall approve, <br />conditionally approve, or deny the site review application. Approval or <br />conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: <br /> <br />(2) Proposed lots, buildings, streets, parking lots, recreation areas, and other <br />proposed uses are designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural <br />environment by addressing the following: <br /> <br />(b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and sited to <br />preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, * * * <br />The gist of the VRI complaint is that the Application struck the wrong balance between <br />developing parking and saving trees. More specifically, the VRI seems to be saying an <br />Applicant can't justify developing more than the minimum amount of parking if it means taking <br />out an additional significant tree. <br />The VRI complaint is premised on a misconception of the Site Review process and standards. <br />VRI assumes that an applicant has an obligation to shrink the use in order to preserve more trees. <br />That is not so. All of the Site Review standards have to do with how the allowed use is arranged <br />or designed on the site, not what the allowed use should be. Hence, for example, the standards in <br />EC 9.8440 address the "general design and character" of the use, and how the improvements are <br />"designed and sited." There is no standard that suggests that an applicant must develop less than <br />what is allowed in the zone. <br />Here the applicant is proposing to develop more than the minimum amount of parking but less <br />than the maximum. The materials in post-hearing Exhibit D, the Marriott Design Criteria, also <br />show that the number of spaces proposed will be fewer than what is called for by the chain. See <br />Exhibit D at page 1-7 Item 1.3 (C) Parking Spaces. <br />In summary, the tree preservation standard does not require the Applicant to shrink the allowed <br />use to save more trees. VRI has not raised an issue under this standard. If VRI were to apply <br />this standard correctly, it would try to point out how the Applicant could have saved more trees <br />by developing the same number of parking spaces using a different layout or design that <br />otherwise meets the balance of the substantive standards. VRI has not attempted to do that. <br />