3rd Open Record Period: Applicant’s final rebuttal (4-6-18)

Eugene Hearing Official April 6, 2018 Page 21 Mr. Saberian is a full-time supervising engineer for the City of Santa Rosa, California. He does not state that he ever visited the site. Mr. Saberian did not submit any calculations to demonstrate that the TIA standards are not met. meet the city roadway width standards. it is an effective method, as the City Engineer notes, to calm traffic. Some new streets in the South Hills have purposely been constructed this way as a way to implement traffic calming policy. Neighbor concerns about speeding and illegal parking raise city enforcement issues, not grounds for denying new development. The Gilbert response concludes with responses to specific criticism in Saberian report. The neighborhood response committee submitted evidence at the second open record period. This evidence should not be considered because it responds to hearing evidence, not evidence in the first open record period. In summary, the HO should endorse the conclusion in the staff report, as supported by the expert EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. 1. As explained in our March 5 Standards Spreadsheet and Hearing Letter, the operative phase Needed Housing Statute. 2. The Staff Report at 32-34 examines the application under each of the five elements of this standard, finds compliance, and recommends approval. The Staff Report recommends a condition requiring further geotechnical analysis in conjunction with any development. The applicant concurs with that recommendation. The HO should endorse the Staff Report findings and condition. 3. Opponentslieder, Ph.D., CEG, provided a half-hour Powerpoint lecture at the hearing and a made two post- Derrick P.E., G.E., Principal Geotechnical Engineer at Branch Engineering, and Gary Sandstrom