Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission August 22, 2016 Page 6 pay System Development Charges based on the rates for filtration planters, but will minimize the amount of stormwater being discharged to the public system." (Emphasis supplied). What the above passage says is that on-site planters will adequately treat the storm water quality and, for storm water quality, the proposal complies with EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1). That statement is supported by the revised application's Attachment L - Stormwater Report. Attachment L consists of two documents. The first is a Stormwater Report with site plans and water quality calculation sheets from pages L-1 through L-58. The Stormwater Report cover and table of contents is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. The second is a Geotechnical Report from pages L-59 through L-79 of the revised narrative's Attachment L. The cover, cover letter and table of contents of the Geotechnical Report are attached hereto as Exhibit 8. The application demonstrates compliance with the city's storm water quality standards through on site water quality management that satisfies EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1). The Geotechnical Report demonstrates that the conditions exist to warrant an on-site filtration system. The Stormwater Report and the numerous filtration/infiltration data sheets demonstrate that the on-site filtration system will result in storm water quality sufficient to meet City standards. EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2), which applies only to off-site water quality management, does not apply to this application because the proposal manages storm water quality through on site measures. The Hearings Officer erred by applying EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) after the applicant demonstrated compliance with EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1). The Planning Commission should reverse that error. Two other points are worth noting. First is the reference to systems development charges (SDCs). The reference to SDCs in the above narrative is expressly in relation to stormwater flood control, which is addressed under EC 9.6791. The Hearings Officer concluded that the proposal complied with that standard and did not discuss it in his decision. The application narrative makes clear that it is under that standard, and consistent with its requirements, for which the SDCs will be paid. The Hearings Officer and opponents incorrectly associated the storm water flood control SDC reference to the storm water quality standard. The second point includes statements at page 31 of the revised narrative, under the discussion for EC 9.6792(3)(a) that provide: "Geotechnical work has not yet been completed[.] * * * These conditions will be verified with the geotechnical report to be submitted with the building permit application." The inclusion of the above language in the revised application was an editing error on the Applicant's part. It is language that was in the original application narrative, prior to completeness review, that the Applicant failed to edit out for the revised application narrative. That language should have been removed because, as indicated above and in excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit 7, a geotechnical report had in fact been completed and provided as part of