Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

places more lots in the higher elevations where more site disturbance has occurred in the past (including the construction of existing structures and associated grading and the past removal of trees and vegetation.) By locating the new private road within the footprint of the existing vehicular accessway the applicant has worked with the existing property constraints while limiting site disturbance. Locating almost all of the preservation area in the steepest portion of the site where trees and vegetation are most dense also serves the public interest by providing a larger buffer between the publicly used Ribbon Trail and the developed portion of the site. The Response Committee and several neighbors disagree that the proposed PUD gives "primacy to the public interest." As the Response Committee states: "In exchange for 34 home sites for buyers who can afford the high cost of construction at this site, the citizens of Eugene will lose a segment of the "evergreen edge" viewshed that has long defined the character of Eugene - a threat foreseen by the authors of the South Hills Study more than forty years ago. The citizens of Eugene will see an increased risk to windthrow and forest degradation in Hendricks Park, the "crown jewel" of the Eugene Park system, and a park close enough to downtown that people frequently walk up Capital Drive to hike its trails. They will see the character and natural setting of the Ribbon Trail (which connects to Hendricks Park) altered and destroyed." "There is a significant conflict between the developer's private interest in increasing the return on an investment property with the public's interest in providing good stewardship of the land, the water, and the community. The Eugene Code provides that in the event of such a conflict "primacy shall be given to the public interest" especially when the conflict could be resolved through "use of an alternative development plan." Response Committee March 7, 2018 Written Hearing Testimony, pages 31, 33. Many neighbors echoed similar perspectives and concerns. One neighbor characterized the development of this site as a "public taking." Others argued that even though they are privately owned, the eight acres immediately adjacent to Hendricks Park should be considered and preserved as an extension of the park; and that the entire site should be protected as a public asset. Another urged that the impacts on other residents, vegetation and wildlife must be more fully evaluated and documented before any impacts to this land should be allowed. Another commented that "bottom line" should be the maximum preservation of the natural environment for the benefit of future generations, and several one expressed that this development would ignore the rights of those who like to hike and live in this area. The Response Committee and the surrounding residential neighbors clearly see the public interest in the preservation of this largely vacant property. However, the Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills Study does not designate this property for preservation or public acquisition. This property is privately owned and zoned for low-density residential development. Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 26