Eugene Planning Commission <br />August 22, 2016 <br />Page 7 <br />Attachment L to the revised application. The Hearings Officer's conclusions regarding the lack <br />of a geotechnical report are inconsistent with the evidence in the record. <br />The Applicant urges the Planning Commission to reverse the Hearings Officer and conclude <br />that the application satisfies the storm water quality standards provided under EC <br />9.6792(3)(d)(1) and that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) therefore does not apply. This is supported by the <br />evidence in the record and the Staff Report. <br />Third Issue: Tree Preservation: EC 9.8440(2) - The evidence in the record demonstrates that <br />the project is designed and sited to preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable <br />or feasible given the stated factors. The Hearings Official erred in his analysis of the evidence <br />before him. <br />The Hearings Official concluded that the application failed to demonstrate compliance with EC <br />9.8840(2)(b). Decision, p. 13. <br />EC 9.8840(2)(b) provides: <br />"(b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and sited to preserve <br />significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, with trees having the <br />following characteristics given the highest priority for preservation: <br />1. Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base <br />zone or special area zone designation and other applicable approval criteria; <br />2. Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual <br />isolated trees subject to windthrow; <br />3. Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or shade <br />expansive areas of pavement; <br />4. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses; <br />5. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback <br />areas; <br />6. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors; <br />7. Trees with significant habitat value; <br />8. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets. <br />9. Trees along water features. <br />10. Heritage trees." <br />In concluding that the application did not demonstrate compliance with this standard, the <br />Hearings Official expressly identified the factors under subsections (2), (5) and (8) above, and <br />noted: "The trees along Delta Highway would appear to fall within these prioritized categories." <br />Decision, p. 13. <br />The Applicant addressed EC 9.8840(2)(b) at pages 41 and 42 of the April 4, 2016 revised <br />application narrative, attached hereto as Exhibit 9. The Application explains: <br />