May 2, 2018 <br />Planning Commission <br />City of Eugene <br />c/o Nick Gioello <br />Senior Planner <br />via email: nick.r.gioellopci.eugene.or.us <br />RE: APPEAL OF HO DECISION, PDT 17-01, CAPITAL HILL PUD <br />Dear Members of the Planning Commission: <br />I am writing this memorandum in support of the appeal of the Hearings Official's decision to <br />conditionally approve the Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-01). The Hearings Official's decision is fraught <br />with several errors regarding the geotechnical portions of the PUD application. The code sections <br />that apply to these errors are: <br />EC 9.8320 (2) South Hills Study <br />EC 9.8320 (6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, <br />including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood <br />hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. <br />In addition, although staff proposes that the site is part of the City's Acknowledged Goal 5 Inventory, <br />the lack of the site on maps depicting the City's Goal 5 areas indicates that this may not be correct, <br />the adoption of the 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper notwithstanding. There is no indication that <br />the City undertook any of the requirements from LCDC to address how development of the sites <br />included in the "Working Paper" could occur while at the same time preserving their natural scenic <br />values. In this context it appears that the provisions of EC 9.6710 may yet be applicable. Otherwise, <br />there is no guidance on how to implement EC 9.8320 (6). <br />It should not be necessary to remind all involved that in the case of a land use application, the burden <br />of proof to show that the application meets applicable code sections is on the applicant. It is <br />apparent from the wording of the HO's Decision that this standard was turned upside down, as she <br />places the burden of proof on the opposition, accepting the applicant's statements without <br />questioning. The pertinent portions of the decision will be presented in the following section, with <br />seemingly erroneous statements highlighted in red and addressed in the following paragraphs. <br />