My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Testimony Received 5-21-18 to 5-22-18
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Testimony Received 5-21-18 to 5-22-18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/1/2018 2:26:38 PM
Creation date
6/1/2018 2:26:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Capital Hill PUD
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
5/23/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
(Metro Plan p. III-C-9/10) <br />The site does not qualify according to any of these categories. The Metro Plan addresses sites <br />that do not qualify under the above categories: <br />C.13 Wetland, riparian corridor, or wildlife habitat sites inside the UGB identified after adoption of <br />the applicable Goal 5 inventory of significant sites, that have not been previously considered for <br />inclusion in the inventory, shall be addressed in the following manner: <br />a.The jurisdiction within which the natural resource is located shall study the site according to <br />the requirements in the Goal 5 administrative rule. <br />Upon the completion of the study, the affected jurisdiction shall determine whether the <br />b. <br />identified natural resource is significant according to the adopted significance criteria of the <br />affected jurisdiction. <br />III-C-11 <br />c. If the newly identified site is determined significant, the affected jurisdiction shall complete <br />the Goal 5 requirements for the site, which includes adoption of protection measures for sites <br />identified for protection. <br />£ȁ 4§¤ ¥¥¤¢³¤£ ©´±¨²£¨¢³¨® ¶¨«« ®³¨¥¸ ¥¥¤¢³¤£ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶¤±² £ ¨³¤±¤²³¤£ ¯ ±³¨¤² <br />³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ ¯±®¢¤²²ȁ <br /> <br />The City has not presented any evidence that this process was employed to include the site in the <br />not completed the requirements for inclusion <br />of the site as a Goal 5 Resource. <br />Resource was based on the fact that the City did not appear to have followed pertinent policies in <br />this designation. This may be a slightly more detailed argument regarding the Goal 5 <br />. <br />Kloos states: <br />2. The Schlieder memo <br />geotechnical/geologic investigation with respect to slope stability (see pages 8-9) and soil <br />creep (see pages 9-10). See especially paragraph 4 on page 10 which is chock full of new <br />evidence about soil creep as evidenced by moving mailboxes and pavement deflection. <br />Dr. Sch <br />The idea that the lateral pavement deflection observed in Floral Hill Drive is the result of the <br /> geotechnical consultant during <br />their rebuttal on March 28, 2018 (second open record period). on <br />page 1, third paragraph: <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.