Rebecca Dorsey <br />2.540 Wt357i:3land Drive <br />Eugene. OR, 97403 <br />541-335-1191 <br />Nick Gioello November 26, 2017 <br />City of Eugene, nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us <br />Dear Mr. Gioello, <br />I am writing to express my opposition to the application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) at the <br />top of Capital Drive in southeast Eugene. I'm very concerned about this application because of the <br />various ways that it is not safe and would harm our community. The proposed Capital Hill PUD: <br />(1) Fails Elevation Restriction. Nearly half of the proposed PUD is located above 901 feet elevation, a <br />zone that is clearly designated by the South Hills Study to be protected from intensive development. <br />The proposed PUD occupies the highest and most prominent part of the SE Eugene ridgeline south <br />of Hendricks Park, and is visible from many locations in central and SE Eugene. The aggressive tree <br />cutting plan would decimate the ridgeline view shed and harm this sensitive forest environment. <br />(2) Fails Expectation of Minimal Tree Impact. The "Tree Preservation Plan" is a "Tree Removal Plan". <br />As originally proposed, the PUD would remove 42% of existing trees on the property, with bigger <br />trees disproportionately targeted for removal. The August 22 revision of the application describes <br />the tree removal plan in more vague terms, but the potential impact is the same. This plan clearly <br />violates the purposes of the South Hills study through excessive tree removal. It also poses a blow- <br />down hazard to trees that would be left after tree removal, including trees in Hendricks Park. <br />(3) Fails Access and Street-Safety Requirements. Access is woefully inadequate for this development. <br />Capital Drive is too narrow, making it unsafe for traffic that would result from the proposed <br />development. Also, there is only one access route, which poses a major hazard during emergencies. <br />(4) Poses Landslide Hazard. The proposed PUD includes housing lots and a street at the top of a steep <br />unstable slope in an area of high landslide hazard as mapped by DOGAMI. The application mentions <br />some but not all of the slope-stability issues. The application should be denied because it does not <br />address the severe landslide hazard to life and property on and near the proposed development. <br />These and other objections will be presented in more detail in future documents related to this case. <br />Respectfully Submitted, <br />Rebecca Dorsey (rdorsey@uoregcn,edu) <br />