Attachment C <br />IOELLO Nick R <br />Attachment B <br />From: erik fisher <erikfisher@earthlinl<.net> <br />Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 9:09 AM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <br />Cc: fisher erik; Sandra Austin Fred &; Joan Moon/Kelley David &; Helen Reed; Beyer Jim; <br />Foster Rachel; Beth Copeland; Svevo Brooks <br />Subject: Captital Hill PUD Comments from Friends of Hendricks Park in advance of March 7, <br />2018, Public Hearing <br />> Dear Mr Gioello: <br />> The Friends of Hendricks Park is a non-profit organization that has been providing stewardship to Hendricks <br />Park since 2001, working closely with Parks and Open Space in bringing thousands of dollars and volunteer hours to <br />bear. We have followed with interest the proposals of the Capital Hill PUD. We have met with Dr Dreyer, walked the <br />property and the Ribbon trail (the latter many times!), attended Neighborhood Association meetings, and discussed the <br />matter extensively amongst ourselves. We have held back on presenting an opinion until now, waiting to see what kind <br />of amendments would be made. The time has come for us to take a public position. <br />> We are strongly concerned over the scale of the proposed development. Had the PUD been of a more modest <br />order, we doubt that our opposition would be anything like it has now become. Such a large and intense development <br />on the margins of Hendricks Park poses risks to Hendricks Park's integrity, both in terms of its forest health and visitor <br />experience. <br />> First among these concerns is that the removal of so many PUD trees on the southern boundary will lead to the <br />toppling of trees in the park by windstorms. We have already seen how extensive wind damage has been in other <br />locales of Hendricks Park. Obviously, fewer PUD tree removals would lessen this impact. <br />> Another is that the Capital Hill PUD property has many invasive weeds of types and densities that could <br />threaten the ecological integrity of the park's forest when construction begins, unless extraordinary precautions were <br />to be taken. We are spending thousands of dollars annually to prevent and remove infiltration by species like shining <br />geranium. Experience has taught us that disturbance near the park makes increased invasion more than likely. Again, <br />lesser disturbance - fewer sites near the park boundary, more of a buffer - would safeguard the forest. <br />> The third consideration involves the Ribbon Trail. The Ribbon Trail is a southward extension of Hendricks Park <br />that has become a major walking attraction in its own right. The developer has expressed sensitivity to the viewshed of <br />this trail, and has provided a buffer. His current plan nevertheless would impact it significantly and adversely. Year- <br />round, the northeast corner of the development would be quite visible (where the buffer is negligible), and depending <br />on vegetation removal, so would other houses be apparent. In winter, virtually all of the houses on the east edge of the <br />PUD would loom above the trail. <br />> Even more worrisome are the reports that the east slope above the Ribbon trail has significant landslide risk, <br />increasing further the more vegetation and soil are disturbed. Clearly, such could dramatically and adversely impact not <br />only the viewshed but the trail's foot tread itself. Both these factors combine to warrant a further set back than has <br />been currently provided. <br />> Thank you for the opportunity to speak up on behalf of our beloved Hendricks Park. <br />> Sincerely yours, <br />> Erik Fisher, <br />> Friends of Hendricks Park Board President, on behalf of the Board <br />Page 103 <br />