Date: May 22, 2018 <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission <br />From: Joint Response Committee of Fairmount Neighbors Association and Laurel Hill Valley Citizens <br />Re: Response to Appeal Issues from Nicholas Gioello in the Planning Staff’s Agenda Item Summary <br />for Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) dated May 22, 2018. <br />The Response Committee, the Fairmount Neighbors Association and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens all <br />want to thank the City Planning Staff, especially the lead planner on this project, Nick Gioello, for his <br />professionalism and cooperation. We also thank, in advance, the Planning Commission for their careful <br />consideration of the crucial development issues raised by this proposed planned unit development. <br />Just as these City agencies have the responsibility as custodians of the quality and integrity of the built <br />and natural environments of our community, so too our Response Committee represents the two <br />neighborhoods – the chartered neighborhood associations and the overwhelming majority of residents – <br />where the proposed CHPUD would be built. We are strongly concerned about the precedents that would <br />be set if developments are allowed to encroach on the unique and cherished forested ridgeline. This urban <br />greenway is viewed and used as a defining environment of the City. <br />We continue to argue that the Hearings Official’s decision made serious errors in failing to consider and <br />rule on key issues regarding the proposed CHPUD’s impact on such issues as trees and environmental <br />quality; traffic safety and emergency response; geology and landslide hazards, and more. <br />Below in this memorandum, the Committee will briefly address the appeal issues discussed in the <br />Planning Staff’s Agenda Item Summary for Capital Hill PUD (City file PDT 17-1) dated May 22, 2018 <br />(the Summary’). Although the appeal items are not numbered in Mr. Gioello’s Summary, the Committee <br />has numbered the items in the order that they appear. <br />1. Conditions of Approval <br />It is not the Response Committee’s intent “to invalidate the use of conditions of approval to remedy a lack <br />of compliance with approval criteria.” Rather, the Committee relies on the LUBA statement in Culligan <br />vs. Washington County, LUBA No. 2008-038, page 8: <br />“…we believe that an applicant’s promise or statement regarding the proposed development is <br />not an adequate substitute for a condition of approval that is necessary to ensure compliance with <br />applicable approval criteria, even if that promise or statement occurs in the application narrative.” <br />The Committee questions whether Staff’s statement on page 4 of the Agenda Item Summary that a future <br />Type II process as it applies to a Final PUD Application is sufficient. <br />The Committee’s concerns relate to the fact that, per EC 9.7200 through 9.7220, the next step in the <br />approval process is Planned Unit Development – Final Plan utilizing the Type II Application Procedure. <br />The Type II Procedure does not provide for a public hearing before the planning director makes his final <br />decision. Therefore, the public’s involvement in the approval process is limited to merely providing <br />written statements in advance, rather than participating in an open forum. <br />Њ <br /> <br />