Attachment C <br />Per the applicant's Geotechnical Investigation and concurrence from Public Works staff, the site <br />appears to be geotechnically suitable for the proposed development provided that the <br />recommendations in the report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. This <br />issue, as it relate to the South Hills Study policies, is discussed in greater detail at EC 9.8320(2) in the <br />staff report. Additional discussion of the geotechnical issues and Eugene Code requirements are <br />found at 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 />applicant's geotechnical/geologic investigation are carried out during future development of the site. <br />• Fails To Meet PUD Code Criteria (EC 9.8320) <br />- Does not meet criteria of EC 9.8320(5) - does not provide safe and adequate <br />transportation systems. <br />- Does not meet criteria EC 9.8320(6) - is a significant risk to public health and safety. <br />- Does not meet criteria EC 9.8320(11) -fails to meet threshold of minimal offsite impacts. <br />- Logical and analytical failure at EC 9.8300(1) - applicant requests flexibility of design while <br />also demanding clear and objective measures. <br />The staff report provides analysis of the above referenced code criteria at EC 9.8320(5), (6) and (11). <br />Staff has concluded that the application complies with these sections of the code, subject to a variety <br />of conditions of approval and subsequent subdivision permitting requirement. Regarding the issues <br />raised about logical and analytical failure at EC 9.8300(1), this section of the code describes the <br />purpose of a PUD and does not serve as approval criteria except in the case of any requests for <br />"proposed non-compliance" under EC 9.8320(10)(k). To the extent relevant, those purposes are <br />addressed in the application materials and the staff report. <br />• Other Issues <br />- Increased noise from the development. <br />- Site is in an identified landslide area and will increase the risk of more landslides. <br />- Loss of trees will have a negative impact on view shed. <br />- South Hills study is violated with loss of too many trees; development above 900 feet is <br />protected by South Hills Study. <br />- No water service is available. <br />- Up to 200,000 construction vehicle trips. <br />- Does not provide a range of housing types, will not be affordable due to high construction <br />costs. <br />- Development does not fit the character of the area. <br />- Development is too big/dense, with too many homes. <br />- No street connectivity for a secondary access route. <br />- Peak hour trips are underestimated. <br />- The preserved area buffer for the Ribbon Trail is minimal at the northeast portion of the <br />site; homes will be visible to walkers on the trail. <br />5 <br />Page 70 <br />