|
staff was fearful that if they asked for more information to support their Greenway permit findings, the
<br />developer or the developer's attorney might make threats of unreasonable cost or delay under ORS
<br />197.303(4). While it is appropriate for staff to be concerned about the requirements of ORS 197.303,
<br />more information was, and still is clearly needed, before a determination of compliance with Greenway
<br />Permit Approval Criteria can be made.
<br />Removal of large, mature trees and wetland vegetation
<br />Based on the information provided, none of the mature trees or other valuable vegetation on the project
<br />is slated to be saved. According to my count, 28 trees will be removed, including a stand of productive
<br />English Walnut trees, a beautiful Port Orford Cedar, and a large and beautiful maple that is close to and
<br />clearly visible from the River Bank Trail. This site is also important because of the presence of several
<br />areas of lush green sedges (Carex species), which are an indicator of wetland conditions. By making
<br />preservation of scenic resources like these a design criterion, as called for by state and local regulations
<br />and standards, as stated above, these beautiful trees and sedges could be saved. However, if the over-
<br />riding design standard is maximizing the number of apartment units, parking spaces, and profit, then
<br />these important and beautiful resources will be destroyed.
<br />Regarding the presence of wetlands on this site, I take issue with the conclusion of the developer's
<br />consultant. The report submitted by the developer apparently bases its conclusions on the results of
<br />soil borings and perc tests at several points on the project site. I question this conclusion based on my
<br />observations of several stands of lush, green sedges (Carex species), both on the eastern side of the site,
<br />near the center of the site towards the north side, and elsewhere on the property. I observed these
<br />stands of sedges both on June 26 and on July 6, 2018, a time well into the dry season, with very little
<br />rain during the preceding 60 days. During my 22 years of work for the California Tahoe Conservancy,
<br />stands of sedges like that always meant the presence of wetland conditions, and we went to great
<br />lengths to protect such areasoften spending millions of dollars to remove fill and structures. When I
<br />observe lush, green sedges well into the dry season, it is very hard for me to believe that wetlands are
<br />not present. Therefore, I recommend that an independent evaluation be conducted to verify the
<br />developer's finding regarding this issue.
<br />Impervious coverage
<br />According to project plans submitted by the developer and posted on the city's website, the project
<br />includes 2.05 acres of coverage out of a total project area of 3.38 acres. Thus, 61% of the site is
<br />proposed to be covered with asphalt, buildings, and other impervious surfaces. Sixty-one percent is a
<br />very high number. For example, at Lake Tahoe, where I used to work, the highest coverage rate
<br />allowed by law was 30%, which applied to very well-drained sites far from sensitive areas. On wetland
<br />and meadow sites (called stream environment zones, which the Lombard Apartments site is, in my
<br />opinion), 0% coverage would be allowed.
<br />Impervious coverage is harmful to the environment because it causes rapid rates and large quantities of
<br />stormwater runoff, rather than allowing rain to percolate into the ground. The vegetation on a meadow
<br />site, such as this, naturally filters out sediment and other water pollutants before the water discharges
<br />into rivers or enters the ground. While the developer has proposed using mitigation measures, such as
<br />porous pavers in some places, I know from my 33 years of water quality planning experience, including
<br />water quality monitoring of projects, that such mitigation measures are typically not highly effective,
<br />and become less and less effective over time. It would be far better for water quality, and for the
<br />-4-
<br />141
<br />
<br />
|