Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

construction of the storm water system. On pages 38 and 39 of the Capital Hill PUD Decision, the Hearings Official states: "To enhance the mitigation, and further reduce impacts, staff has recommended that two replacement trees for each tree removed. The applicant agrees to that recommendation. Therefore, this approval is conditioned on the following changes to the tree preservation plan... " and "Subject to compliance with the conditions identified above, the applicant's Tree Preservation Plan complies with this criterion. " The Hearings Official refers to the Applicant's plan to replant trees in the preservation areas where the storm water system will be placed. However, the storm water system will require maintenance over time-the trees will not be able to grow or will have to be removed when work is done on the storm water system. It is therefore false to claim that replanted trees in the storm water system area are in any way part of a tree preservation plan. It is also incorrect to claim that an area that will be continuously disturbed for maintenance is in any way a "preservation area." Appeal Issue #16: Restoration or Replacement: The Hearings Official asserted a claim unsupported by evidence that prior impacts on trees from existing development have diminished, thus implying that impacts from proposed CHPUD would have similar effect. Discussing the subject property's inclusion in the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the Hearings Official states (p. 39) that the acknowledged level of protection "requires that the proposed PUD comply with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and South Hills Study. Compliance with those applicable provisions is addressed above. " The Hearings Official states (p. 38): "Over time, as the designated and planned use of the surrounding residential properties has occurred, the ridgeline has been slightly modified; as the natural features, and particularly the tree canopy, has grown back in those residential areas, the impacts have been mitigated. Based on the proposed development, including both the proposed common and private preservation areas, and the applicant's proposed restoration plans, the proposed development complies with the level of protection contemplated by the Metro Plan and South Hills Study. " The above statement is inaccurate and incorrect on a number of levels. What the Hearings Official says could be true of a Planned Unit Development that sought to mitigate development above 901' by complying with the Ridgeline Park purpose statement of the South Hills Study by setting aside adequate land above 901'. It is not, however, true of this proposed Planned Unit Development. As the Response Committee's forester, Mr. Mehrwein, pointed out, cutting down a significant number of trees above 901' on. the ridgeline will likely cause other, surrounding trees along the ridgeline to fall. Contrary to what the Hearings Official states, the South Hills Study has prevented an intensive development above 901' throughout the Eugene area and that has protected the ridgeline viewshed for the city. The proposed Capital Hill PUD is out of step with a pattern of protecting viewshed ridgelines surrounding downtown Eugene. The current proposed Capital Hill PUD blatantly fails to protect trees on the ridgeline above 901'. The Hearings Official asserted a claim unsupported by evidence that prior impacts on trees from 18