My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2018 10:39:26 AM
Creation date
3/12/2018 10:38:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
334
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
EC9.8320(11)Theproposeddevelopmentshallhaveminimaloff-siteimpacts,including <br />suchimpactsastraffic,noise,stormwaterrunoffandenvironmentalquality. <br />Inordertoaddressoff-siteimpactsoftheproposedCHPUD,wemustfirsthighlightthefactthat <br />theApplicationpayslittleattentiontotheextentofoff-siteimpactsontheneighborhoods,aswe <br />discussedunder EC9.8320(1)PolicyA.13.TheApplicationmaygrantthat“minimalimpact... <br />shallbeassmallaspossible,”butthedismissiveanddisparagingtoneevidencedinthetextwas <br />experiencedpersonallyinthepublicNeighborhoodMeetingsthattheapplicantwasrequiredto <br />hold.WhenaskedaboutthetrafficconditionsonlocalstreetsleadingtoCapitalDr.thatwould <br />beimpactedbytheproposedCHPUD,representativesoftheApplicantstatedcurtlythatthey <br />werenotresponsiblebeyondthedevelopmentsite. <br />TheApplicationstatementsunder Criterion11 aresimilartothoseofferedunder EC9.8320(1) <br />PolicyA.13.TheApplicationdoesnotpresentanysubstantivediscussionastowhatimpacts <br />wouldactuallybeproduced,anddoesnotpresentanyevidenceaboutwhatactionsapplicant <br />wouldtakeforminimizingormitigatingsuchimpacts.Therecanbenodisputethatthereare <br />hugeimpactsbeyondthe“abuttingproperties,”whichistheborderasfarastheapplication <br />seemstowanttogo(p.61).Iftherewerenocriticaloff-siteimpacts,therewouldbeno <br />reasonableobjectionsbyresidentsintheaffectedimmediateneighborhoods. <br />Seriousshort-termandlong-termoff-siteimpactsontraffic,noise,stormwaterrunoff,and <br />environmentalqualitywouldbeproduced:(1)initially,asaresultoflogging,road,and <br />infrastructureconstructionactivities,includingtravelingtoandworkingwithintheproposedsite; <br />(2)inthelongrun,fromtheproposedextendedbuild-outofindividualresidencesovertime. <br />Applicationstates:“Thereisalsotherealitythatittakestimetobuildahomeaswellasa <br />completePUD.Thepropertywillnotbedevelopedallatonce.”(p.32) <br />Finally,withtheadditionofaminimumof31anduptoamaximumof35proposednew <br />dwellings(asof11/28/17SupplementalInformationtoApplication),therewouldbethe <br />permanentincreaseoftrafficofallkindsontheonlyfeederroadsnowserving112current <br />households,whichwouldpermanentlyjeopardizesafetyandemergencyresponse\[see EC <br />9.8320(6)\].Alsopermanentwouldbethedamagetotheirreplaceableenvironmentalqualityof <br />thewoodedhillsidesoftheoff-siteareasbothinproximitytotheproposedPUDandbeyondin <br />thecityview-shedwherevervisibletoanyonelookingattheimpactareas\[see EC9.8300(1) <br />(d),EC9.8320(2),(4)above;reportfromForester(AppendixH\]. <br />Herewemustdiscussinmoredetailthedangersandirreversibleoff-sitedamagethatwould <br />resultfromtheproposedCHPUD,especiallyregardingtrafficandenvironmentalquality.We <br />willcross-referencetootherCodeCriteriawheretheseissueshavebeentreatedmorethoroughly, <br />inordertoreducerepetition.Incontrast,theapplicationexpendsthree-quartersofits31lines <br />includedunderthiscriteriontorehashingclaimsaboutthecharacteristicsofthedevelopmentthat <br />wehavepreviouslyexposedasinadequate,exaggerated,anderroneous\[claimsofhousing <br />“variety,”“mix,”“range”ofaffordability;see EC9.8300 and EC9.8320(1)aboveand <br />throughout\].Inaddition,heretheapplicationdescribestheproposalas“theredevelopmentof <br />vacantpropertywiththeproposeddwellingunits”(p.61),ratherthanamoreaccurate <br />designationof“infill,”whichwediscussedinrelationtotheUGBin EC9.8320(1). <br />163 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.