and that the ApplicantÈs estimate of the amount of water that will flow over the trail are <br />inaccurate. Again, the point here is that the Applicant has considerable design latitude <br />under the PUD process to avoid these problems but has chosen not to take advantage of <br />9.8320 (9) (12) (15) (16). <br />alternatives. The same arguments apply to <br />Given that the Applicant has proposed the need for a ÅhybridÆ pathway that combines the <br />needed housing path with the general path, we feel the need to point out that the <br />9.8325 <br />Applicant fails to meet the criteria set out in the needed housing section of for the <br />9.8325 (12) (a) <br />same reasons we have pointed out above and elsewhere. In the code states <br />No development shall occur on land above an elevation of 900 feet except that one <br />that <br />dwelling may be built on any lot in existence as of August 1, 2001. <br />Much of the <br />Proposed Capital Hill PUD is proposed for the ridgeline above 901 feet. <br />In summary: the Eugene Planning Staff erroneously recommends that the Proposed <br />Capital Hill PUD should receive approval with only minor changes despite the fact that <br />the Applicant has failed to meet the codes listed aboveÄmost of the criteria for satisfying <br />approval of a PUD in the Eugene code. The Staff suggests the Application should receive <br />approval because it has attempted to meet the code or come as close as possible to doing <br />so. This is a fallacious statement, as we have demonstrated by proposing two simple <br />alternatives (clustered townhouses or large lots for large houses), which would more <br />likely produce a plan that would meet the important criteria and satisfy the needs and <br />concerns of the community with regard to safety and the environment. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />