Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission May 2, 2018 Page 2 LEC 9.8320 (2) PUD consistent with applicable adopted refinement plan (South Hills Study) The HO's decision states on page 21 (emphasis added in red): For purposes of compliance with the South Hills Study, the applicant has recognized the existence of conditions #1 and #S listed above and, accordingly, has provided an in-depth, detailed analysis that includes an "adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact" of the proposed PUD as required by the South Hills Study. While critical of the applicant's methods and analysis, Dr. Gunnar [sic] does not dispute the scope of the study or provide evidence that it does not adequately consider both on-and off-site impacts. La. "In-depth, detailed analysis" The applicant's geotechnical study does not, as the HO's decision states, rise to the level of an "in- depth, detailed analysis", a fact that was readily admitted by the applicant's geotechnical engineer: "I feel it should be stated that the report was intended to be a preliminary investigation for planning purposes with a concentration on the proposed road layout..."' A "preliminary investigation with concentration on the proposed road layout" is afar cry from an in-depth, detailed analysis of the entire parcel for determination of the suitability of the property for the proposed use and an assessment of potential on- and off-site impacts. The applicant's more detailed investigation was conducted over less than 20% of the total area of the PUD and completely ignored significant on- and off-site indications of slope instability, including the landslide scarps mapped by their own engineering geologist. It does not constitute an "adequate review of both on-site and off-site impacts", as required by the South Hills study. Lb. "Dr. Schlieder does not dispute the scope of the study or provide evidence..." The fact that the HO states that GeoScience testimony "does not dispute the scope of the study or provides evidence that it does not adequately consider both on-and off site impacts" demonstrates that the HO failed to read or comprehend the materials submitted by GeoScience at the hearing and during the open record period. Had Ms. Gustafson-Lucker read the GeoScience report, on page 4 she would have seen, in bold-face, underlined, capital letters the heading: "INADEQUATE AND BIASED ASSESSMENT AREA "Z 'Branch Engineering letter dated March 20, 2018, second paragraph) 2GeoScience Technical Review, GeotechnicaUGeologic Assessment and Addendum Capital Hill PUD, March 7, p. 4