8,600 gallons per hour <br />Tract A will spew forth as much as on a steep slope above existing homes. <br />This can only make a bad situation worse. The spreaders will destabilizethe land and existing home <br />sites below, jeopardizing public health and safety. Since when does the pursuit of further personal <br />wealth trump public safety? <br />If this dense development is approved as proposed, it would set an alarming precedent for other <br />potential developments along the ridgeline. As a result of city approvals so far, there will be lasting <br />impacts on the urban forest, local traffic safety, and emergency response capabilities. <br />Large trees to be cut (nearly 400 trees with a diameter greater than eight inches, including almost all <br />of the 27 trees greater than four feet in diameter) will exacerbate an already tenuous landslide <br />situation on the site and on nearby properties as critical root zones are destroyed. This is in direct <br />opposition to EC 9.8320 (6). <br />The Planning Commission must increase (not override) protection for such sensitive urban areas and <br />for the residents who live in the surrounding neighborhoods. <br />Comments on this Procedure: <br />The Eugene Planning Commission did not schedule a public hearing for live testimony on these <br />public safety issues. The Commission decided to only accept written testimony on this highly <br />complex issue, which effectively tamps down the voices of neighborhood concern. Not surprisingly, <br />the format prescribed by the Planning Commission of no public testimony is exactly what was <br /> <br />The City needs to determine and then abide by pre-determined written procedures for handling <br />remands from higher government authorities. Right now there are none. The City has complete <br />will consider. This is not logical, unl <br />In the case of PDT 17-001, the City has utilized this advantage to deflect additional neighborhood <br />We get it you are <br />weary of those who continue with a dogged determination to oppose this project. As Carole <br />Schirmer stated in an email in the record, we are <br />et the <br />picture. However, <br />Procedures for the handling of remands need to be established (with heavy input from the public) <br />and entered into the code immediately. <br />A Final Comment: <br />EC 9.6710 (3) Exemptions from Geological and Geotechnical Analysis Requirements <br />states: <br /> <br /> <br />A residential building permitsubject to previous reports and <br />(d) for a lot or parcel that was <br />assessments. <br /> (Emphasis added.) <br />