Given that EC 9.8470 requires an affirmative demonstration of compliance with the /WR overlay standards, the <br />absence of resource-specific impact and mitigation analysis is a substantive failure of the application, not <br />merely a technicality.eugene.[2][3][4] <br />3. EC 9.4980 – /WR conservation area: insufficient demonstration of standards and <br />long-term protection <br />EC 9.4980 and related /WR provisions establish mandatory standards for uses and activities within the Water <br />Resources Conservation Area, including limitations on grading, vegetation removal, and structures, and <br />requirements for planting/replanting and long-term resource protection. [3][4] <br />The materials in the record do not demonstrate that the proposed development—including the Randy Lane <br />extension, detention ponds, swales, and utility corridors—will comply with these standards: <br />Grading and tiered detention within the conservation area: The stormwater system includes five-tiered <br />detention ponds and multiple vegetated swales located at the base of the hill and within or adjacent to <br />wetlands and streams. This implies substantial grading, excavation, and installation of rock armoring and <br />structural features within the conservation area, but the application does not demonstrate that these are <br />allowed uses under EC 9.4980 or that they are the minimum necessary to achieve code compliance.[3] <br />[4] <br />Planting standards and maintenance: The applicant includes generic Operations and Maintenance <br />(O&M) language for vegetated facilities, swales, rain gardens, and structural detention based on the <br />City’s 2014 Stormwater Management Manual, but there is no project-specific planting plan for the /WR <br />conservation area that shows species, densities, and coverage consistent with EC 9.4980 planting <br />standards. The O&M text is essentially boilerplate language (inspection frequency, mowing heights, <br />sediment removal, etc.) and does not demonstrate how the City will ensure long-term protection and <br />enhancement of Goal 5 habitat functions within the conservation area. [3][6] <br />Fragmentation and edge effects: By extending Randy Lane and installing multiple private access drives <br />and easements near or within the /WR area, the project substantially increases edge length and potential <br />for human disturbance, invasive species spread, and stormwater pollutant loading to protected resources. <br />EC 9.4980 is intended to protect water quality and habitat, but the application does not provide any <br />analysis of these fragmentation and edge effects or propose mitigation measures (such as fencing, buffer <br />enhancement, or access restrictions) to preserve resource integrity. [3][4][6] <br />Without a clear, detailed demonstration that each activity within the conservation area is permitted under EC <br />9.4980 and that all required planting and long-term protection measures will be implemented, the City cannot <br />lawfully make the findings required for SDR 25-02. [2][3] <br />4. Stormwater analysis: speculative assumptions and lack of Goal 5-focused evaluation <br />The stormwater report is central to the applicant’s claim that the project “meets or exceeds” City requirements <br />and SLOPES V criteria. However, several aspects of the analysis are based on broad assumptions rather than <br />site-specific data, raising concerns about the reliability of the conclusions in a sensitive Goal 5 context:[6] <br />Impervious percentage assumptions: For detention sizing, the report assumes that lots are 20% <br />impervious and for water quality it assumes 50% impervious, and then states that these assumptions are <br />“conservative” and that additional detention will be required on-lot if impervious exceeds 20%. Yet the <br />PUD itself proposes large, steep lots with significant development potential and complex private <br />driveway systems, and there is no binding mechanism in the record ensuring that individual builders will <br />actually provide additional detention if they exceed the assumed impervious coverage. In a /WR setting, <br />reliance on such unverified future behavior is speculative and does not satisfy the City’s obligation to <br />ensure compliance at the time of approval. [2][3][6]