Appeal Testimony - Laserfiche WebLink

According to the city's staff report, staff determined that the project met the above based on their analysis as quoted below: The applicant's response under this criterion does not provide much information, but clearly the applicant chose to locate the development at least 100 feet from the river, and to retain that open space area along the bike path and river. Staff believes the applicant's site plan and other available information showing the ample distance and existing riparian vegetation between the development and the river is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this criterion . As a state and local government land use and resource planner with 33 years of experience reviewing project plans, it is my professional opinion that the information provided by the developer is insufficient to demonstrate compliance with this criterion. Staff's determination is flawed and insufficient for the following reasons: (1)The 100 feet of setback that is claimed is not relevant to staff's determination because it is measured from the top of the river bank, which is east of the project site and the River Bank Trail, which is not part of the property proposed for development. The relevant setbank distance is from the property line. When I measure the setback distance from the west edge of the River Bank Trail to the east wall of the nearest building (a three-story structure), that distance is about 70 feet. This actual setback distance does not, in my professional opinion, justify a finding of providing the maximum possible landscaped area, open space, and vegetation between the activity and the river. By measuring the setback from the river bank, the developer is inappropriately being given credit for off-site public open space (i.e. the River Bank Trail and the riparian area to the east of the trail.) (2)The area of open space provided between the development and the River Bank Trail is roughly15% of the project site. Without seeing any documentation or evidence to the contrary, it is very hard to understand how such a small percentage of open space can be considered the maximum possible.... as required by the city's permit requirements, as stated more fully above. Furthermore, I doubt whether a judge in a court of law would find that such a determination is reasonable. In stating that the developer does not provide much information regarding the first Greenway permit approval criterion, staff is acknowledging that the basis of their determination is weakly supported. In my written and oral communication Rodney Bohner on July 6, 2018, I asked him if staff had requested documentation or evidence from the developer to support staff in making a finding regarding the first criterion. His answer was no. In Mr. Bohner's written and phone communication with me on July 6, he explained that staff's reasoning behind not requesting more information from the developer regarding the Greenway permit was their concerns about ORS 197.303, which requires clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of housing, including needed housing, and that the standards, conditions and procedures...May not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, or discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. In addition, Mr. Bohner reminded me, in our phone conversation, that Michael Reeder, the attorney for the developer, and the other th private land use attorney who gave testimony at the June 27 hearing, both stated at this hearing (as I also heard with my own ears) their belief that the Greenway permit requirements essentially don't apply to this project because they are subjective. In these communications with Mr. Bohner, I sensed that -3- 140