Date: 7 March 2018 <br /> <br />To: Nick Gioello, Associate Planner <br /> City of Eugene Planning and Development <br />th <br /> 99 West 10 Ave, Eugene, OR 97401 <br />nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us. <br /> <br /> <br />From: Roxi Thoren <br /> 2984 Capital Dr., Eugene, OR 97403 <br /> <br />Re: Objection to Capital Hill PUD <br /> <br />This letter is in regards to the Capital Hill PUD (PDT&+`%&!$8EWOXLEXXLMWPIXXIVFIIRXIVIHMRXSXLI <br />record and that receipt be confirmed. <br /> <br />While I am writing as a private citizen, I feel it is useful to provide the context of my professional experience <br />and expertise. My opinions do not represent the views of the University of Oregon, but rather my views as a <br />private citizen with expertise in the area of land use. I am the Associate Dean of the University of Oregon <br />College of Design and an Associate Professor of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. I served as the <br />co-chair of the Glenwood Refinement Plan Citizen Advisory Commission, which oversaw the four-year <br />TYFPMGTVSGIWWSJVI\[VMXMRKXLI2MX\]SJ?TVMRKJMIPHdW^Sning code for the Glenwood district; and I served as a <br />witness in the State of Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals process following that rewriting. At the <br />university, I teach land analysis, site design, urban design, and resilient neighborhood design. <br /> <br />Graduates of our programs in planning and landscape architecture write land use policies and design <br />neighborhoods that are admired and replicated around the nation for their livability, environmental <br />resilience, and foresight. It pains me to review this Capital Hill PUD proposal and know that it was <br />designed by graduates of our landscape architecture program. If it were a student project, I would not pass <br />it. If I were being charitable, I would call it unimaginative and backward-looking. Since my remarks are part <br />SJXLITYFPMGVIGSVH"8dPPGEPPMX\[LEXMXMW.YRIXLMGEP"YRWEJI"ERHRSRGSQTPMERX\[MXLIMXLIVXLIPIXXIVSV <br />intent of local and state land use laws, as well as rife with errors, obfuscations, and outright lies (for <br />instance, the assertion on page 38 thatbXLIWMXIGSRXEMRWRSVMHKIPMRIWRSVMWMX\[MXLMREZMI\[GSVVMHSV$c8EQ <br />EWLEQIHXLEXKVEHYEXIWSJQ\]HITEVXQIRXGERdXMHentify a ridgeline when presented with one on a <br />topographic map, nor understand that a hill visible from almost the entirety of the city is within a view <br />corridor.) The neighborhood committee has documented the various technical issues I have with this plan, <br />although I will summarize some of them here. But I would like to comment here primarily on the ethical <br />issues. <br /> <br />Oregon Governor Tom McCall and other visionary citizens crafted SB10 and SB100 to protect our state <br />from exactly the sort of development we see proposed heVI"TEVXSJ:G2EPPdWYKP\]XVMYQZMVEXISJbWEKIFVYWL <br />subdivisions, coastal condomania, and the ravenous rampages of suburbME$c0HZSGEXMRKJSV?1&%%":G2EPP <br />argued against the "shameless threat to our environment and to the \[LSPIUYEPMX\]SJPMJIaYRJIXXIVIH <br />despoiling of the land" that this proposed development exemplifies: development that destroys our <br />common wealth, our environment, for individual profit. SB10 and SB100 exist because our legislators knew <br />that once developed, farms, beaches, forests and streams almost never return. Our beaches, our Willamette <br />Greenway, our compact cities are admired worldwide for their beauty, but also for what they represent: our <br />vision to use land use policy to protect environments that enrich all our communities, provide ecosystem <br />services to all, and create the quality of life that continues to draw people to Oregon, for tourism, for <br />business, for life. While not inventoried as such, the land in this proposal, adjacent to Hendricks Park, <br /> <br />