Attachment C <br /> <br /> <br />Regarding noise, the staff report addresses this issue at EC 9.8320(11). The development is proposed <br />with no uses other than residential. Anticipated noises generated from the development should be <br />consistent with the noises and sounds generated by the neighboring residential areas and will have <br />minimal impact to the surrounding area. <br /> <br />Landslide issues are previously discussed under the Environmental Impacts section of this summary. <br />Additional discussion of the geotechnical issues and Eugene Code requirements are found at EC <br />9.8320(2), EC 9.8320(6), and EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis in the staff report. A <br />condition of approval is recommended at EC 9.8320(6) to ensure the recommendations of the <br /> <br /> <br />The loss of trees and effect on the view shed are discussed at EC 9.8320(2) in the staff report, <br />regarding the South Hills Study policy that ensures developments blend with, rather than dominate, <br />the natural characteristics of the south hills area. Views of the property from off site are discussed at <br />EC 9.8320(3) and loss of trees and the view of the site is discussed at EC 9.8320(4)(b) in the staff <br />report. <br /> <br />The applicable policies of the South Hills Study are discussed at EC 9.8320(2) in the staff report. It is <br />noted that the South Hills Study provides that vacant property above 901 feet elevation ĬĻ <br />ƦƩĻƭĻƩǝĻķ ŅƩƚƒ ğƓ źƓƷĻƓƭźǝĻ ƌĻǝĻƌ ƚŅ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷͲ ƭǒĬƆĻĭƷ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ŅƚƌƌƚǞźƓŭ ĻǣĭĻƦƷźƚƓƭʹ <br />Њ͵ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ źƓķźǝźķǒğƌ ƩĻƭźķĻƓĭĻƭ ƚƓ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ƌƚƷƭʹ ğƓķ <br />Ћ͵ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ǒƓķĻƩ ƦƌğƓƓĻķ ǒƓźƷ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƦƩƚĭĻķǒƩĻƭ ǞŷĻƓ źƷ ĭğƓ ĬĻ ķĻƒƚƓƭƷƩğƷĻķ <br />ƷŷğƷ ğ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ źƭ ĭƚƓƭźƭƷĻƓƷ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ƦǒƩƦƚƭĻƭ ƚŅ Ʒŷźƭ ƭĻĭƷźƚƓ͵ <br /> <br />Therefore, properties above 901 feet can be developed under the PUD process. Tree preservation is <br />discussed at EC 9.8320(4)(b) in the staff report. <br /> <br />Water availability is discussed at EC 9.8320(7) in the staff report. EWEB comments indicate there is <br />sufficient water to supply the proposed Capital Hill PUD. However, the existing water system <br />infrastructure does not have adequate capacity to provide the required domestic and fire water flows <br />resulting from the increased demand of the proposed development. The applicant will need to work <br /> a new water distribution system. <br /> <br />Construction vehicle traffic is not part of the approval criteria for a PUD. Public Works staff has <br />previously responded to this question by neighbors, and indicated that the rehabilitation and <br />repaving of Capital Drive in 2016, design standards by accounting for heavy <br />vehicles over a 20 year design life. <br /> <br />Housing affordability is not part of the approval criteria for a PUD. The proposal does include the <br />option for two lots to develop with three smaller sized attached single-family units. An existing three <br />unit apartment will be converted into two single-family attached units. <br /> <br />The South Hills Study recommends maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed gross <br />density of approximately 2.5 to 2.8 dwelling units per acre is well below the recommended threshold. <br />Ε <br /> <br />Page 71 <br /> <br />