Appeal Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

to completeness review. The geotechnical report was submitted as an appendix to the "Eugene Towneplace Suites Stormwater Report" dated March 29, 2016. Staff also confirms that the applicant proposes to manage stormwater onsite, which means EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) does not apply. EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) does apply, but the Hearings Official did not find incompliance with this standard. Regardless, staff confirms that this standard is met. In areas onsite where the soil infiltration rate is 1.2 inches per hour (which is less than the 2-inch per hour maximum specified in the criterion), stormwater filtration3 is proposed. In areas onsite where the soils have a faster infiltration rate of 4 inches per hour, stormwater infiltration4 is proposed. Planning Commission Options: If the Planning Commission determines the Hearings Official did not error in his decision to determine that the standard pertaining to off-site stormwater management is not satisfied, then no additional findings are needed to affirm the Hearings Official decision with respect to this issue. If the Planning Commission determines the Hearings Official erred in his decision to determine that the standard pertaining to off-site stormwater management is not satisfied, the Planning Commission can adopt revised findings to reverse the Hearings Official decision with respect to this issue. Alternatively, the Planning Commission can impose a condition of approval and adopt revised findings to reverse the Hearings Official decision with respect to this issue 3. Third Assignment of Error: Tree Preservation: EC 9.8440(2) -The evidence in the record demonstrates that the project is designed and sited to preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible given the stated factors. The Hearings Official erred in his analysis of the evidence before him. Hearings Official's Decision: The Hearings Official states, "While I do not agree with VRI that the applicant must reduce the amount of parking spaces proposed for the application, I also do not agree with the applicant that it can just determine whatever development it wants with whatever associated parking and infrastructure and then remove most or all of the significant trees because that it is necessary for the desired level of use. EC 9.8440(2) directs that a project be 'designed and sited' in order to preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible ...The applicant merely determined what type of development specifics it wanted and proposed to remove the necessary trees to accomplish the desired result. While an applicant is not required to design alternative designs that preserve more significant trees just to demonstrate such plans are not attainable or feasible, an applicant must make some effort to preserve significant trees and if they cannot then explain why such trees cannot be preserved" (Hearings Official Decision, page 13). Summary of Appellant's Argument: The appellant argues that there are a number of design limitations imposed by the site which resulted Filtration: The percolation of water through designed soils or media with the use of under drains to convey treated runoff from the development site to approved discharge points. Infiltration: The percolation of water into the ground. Page 5 PC Agenda - Page 5