Public Comments submitted prior to hearings official hearing

GSRXVMFYXIWXSQER\]SJ<VIKSRdWTPERRMRKKSEPW.6Sal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources; Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disaster and Hazards; and Goal 8: Recreational Needs. When we host the Olympic trials in Eugene, I see athletes and spectators from around the world running through this hilltop. The high school track team and university teams run here year-round. Daily, I see neighbors from around the city who come here to walk their dogs, jog with friends, walk with their families. I see university students bring their parents here the show off the best of Eugene. From around town, we can all see this neighborhood, the evergreen ridge line visually conneGXMRK7IRHVMGOW=EVOXS?TIRGIVdW Butte, encircling the city. Imagine instead thirty-eight McMansions, half the trees cut down, a gash in the ridge line. We would impoverish the city for all, like building a development on the beach. That is not the intent of SB10 or SB100. And that \[EWRSXXLIGMX\]dWMRXIRXMR^SRMRK this land PUD: planned unit development. There is no P or U in this proposal. It is simply D: the development of a banal subdivision, at odds with the reason the city zoned this forest to allow creative, small footprint, clustered units, allowing maximum property rights while minimizing the development impact on the city. I object to the public taking this proposal presents, in direct opposition XSXLIGMX\]dW?SYXL7MPPW?XYH\]$@LI city zoned this land PUD to protect the ridgeline and comply with the South Hills Study, which exists to TVSXIGXbEYRMUYIERHMVVITPEGIEFPIGSQQYRMX\]EWWIX$$$CXLat provides\] a strong visual boundary or edge for XLIGMX\]$c@LIPERH\[IGSRWMHIVXSHE\]MWbQSWXZMWMFP\]ETEVXSJXLIIRXMVIGSQQYRMX\]cERHbGSRXVMFYXICWDXS 4YKIRIdWIZIVKVIIRJSVIWXIHKI$c@LI?SYXL7MPPW?XYHy requires that PUD proposals demonstrate that the proposed development is consistent with the purposes of the Ridgeline Park section quoted above. The does not comply Capital Hill PUD subdivision proposal with that visionary policy. There are a number of ways the proposal does not comply with the South Hills Study, including all the VIUYMVIQIRXWXSGPYWXIVHIZIPSTQIRXSREVIEWSJbPS\[IWt elevations, least amount of vegetation, \[and\] least EQSYRXSJZMWYEPMQTEGXcERHTVIWIVZIEVIEWSJbLMKLIr elevations, significant amounts of vegetation, \[and\] WMKRMJMGERXZMWYEPMQTEGX$c@LITVSTSWIHHIZIPSTQIRXLEWnot been reviewed by a geologist; is not clustered, EWVIUYMVIH/GERdXFIVIZMI\[ed in terms of scale, bulk, and height, since there are no proposed units; and does not ensure maximum preservation of existing vegetation. There are also many technical problems with the plan, which the neighborhood group has described well. The most egregious are the lack of a legitimate tree protection plan, storm water management plan (incredibly, the bulk of the stormwater will outflow onto Hendricks Park and the Ribbon Trail, and the management plan does not account for most of the houses nor some of the roads), or geotechnical analysis (the NRCS map clearly states that soil data may not be valid at the scale shown). Finally, in addition to problems with the proposal itself, this is not a safe context for increased development. Its charm is also its threat. Large trucks either cannot maneuver the winding roads, or can only do so at low speeds. Fire safety regulations assume certain driving speeds that a fire truck cannot sustain on this hill. Two houses have burned in the neighborhood in recent years, one gutted and one GSQTPIXIP\]HIWXVS\]IH"FIGEYWIXVYGOWGSYPHRdXEVVMZIMRXMQI$ 0RH8\[SYPHFIVIQMWWRSXXSQIRXMSRXLIIKVIKMSYWHERKIVXLMWWYFHMZMWMSR\[SYPHGVIEXISRXLIGMX\]dW substandard roads, and the liability the city will open itself to by approving this subdivision.