Appeal Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

EC 9.8440(2) regarding tree preservation. In regards to the unchallenged criteria, the Hearings Official noted that he adopted and incorporated the findings in the staff report (which includes seven conditions of approval unrelated to the appeal issues). The Hearings Official's decision is included as Attachment C. In response to the Hearings Official's denial, Bill Kloos, on behalf of the applicant, filed an appeal on August 22, 2016. The appeal statement is included as Attachment D. PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW ROLE Based on procedural requirements set forth in the Eugene Code (see EC 9.7655), the Planning Commission may address only those issues set out in the written appeal statement. Further, the Planning Commission limits its consideration to the evidentiary record established before the Hearings Official; the Planning Commission may not accept new evidence, except that which it officially notices. The City Attorney has advised that the Planning Commission should not use its authority to take official notice of material that would be new evidence when it is considering an appeal. The Eugene Code requires that the Planning Commission's decision on this appeal be based on whether or not the Hearings Official failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with the applicable criteria. Those criteria are the Site Review Criteria at EC 9.8440 and the Willamette Greenway Permit Criteria at EC 9.8815, to the extent they are implicated by the appea12. The Planning Commission's role on appeal is to determine whether or not the Hearings Official erred in his decision, based on the record of evidence and testimony he had before him. The Planning Commission can also find that approval criteria can be met with a new condition of approval. The full text of the Eugene Code sections at issue in this appeal are included as Attachment E. SUMMARY OF APPEAL ISSUES The applicant's appeal is focused on three issues: street trees, storm water quality, and tree preservation. To assist the Planning Commission in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Hearings Official's decision, staff has identified pertinent record information and considerations below. The full text of the Hearings Official's Decision and Appeal Statement are attached. The Staff Report is included in the application file for reference. 1. First Assignment of Error: Street Trees: EC 9.2170(5)(d); EC 7.280(1) - Evidence in the record demonstrates that the street tree standard can be met, and the Planning Commission can conclude the standard is met with a condition of approval. Hearings Official's Decision: The Hearings Official states, "According to the applicant, because the proposed hotel does not involve the creation of a new street, no street tree standards apply. VRI [Valley River Inn] points to the second emphasized language to demonstrate that the policy clearly contemplates situations involving streets that are not new being required to comply with the street tree standards. I agree Although an adjustment review application is included as part of the proposal, the Hearings Official's decision did not deny the application based on the adjustment review approval criterion. As such, those are not addressed as part of the appeal. Page 2 PC Agenda - Page 2