My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Open Record 1st Period (6-13-19 to 6-18-19)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Open Record 1st Period (6-13-19 to 6-18-19)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2019 1:38:36 PM
Creation date
6/19/2019 1:38:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Capitol Hill PUD
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
6/19/2019
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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
contradict this section of the code? <br />Condition of Approval #10A geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer, with specific <br />recommendations for design and construction standards, shall be provided with any application for <br /> and <br />residences on individual lots <br />. (Emphasis added.) <br />Condition #10 continues: <br />design and construction as contained in the preliminary geotechnical analysis approved for the <br />as well as any additional geotechnical analyses required for individual <br />tentative PUD, <br /> <br />(Emphasis added.) <br />In Condition of Approval #10, the Planning Commission has effectively postponed the decision of <br />soil stability for each residence to the point at which the individual lot owner applies for a building <br />permit. However, EC 9.6710 (3) (d) seems to indicate that additional geotechnical investigation is <br />exempt from the very guidelines contained in EC 9.6710 that dictate the quality of the geotech work <br />to be performed. Because the Planning Commission failed to address this conundrum, they may <br />have inadvertently gutted the extra level of soils research they were seeking to require. <br />********************************************************************************* <br />The following is submitted as additional testimony regarding perhaps why the results of Planning <br />Commission adjudication is so often in favor of the applicant. This is a letter submitted in the last <br />week to both the editor of the Register Guard and Eugene Weekly. <br />Eugene Planning Commission Violates State Statutes & City Code <br />Current membership at the Eugene Planning Commission (EPC) violates State statutes and City <br />code. EPC -profit construction interests. As a result, EPC often <br />defers to developers, ignores potential lasting negative community impacts and treats valid <br />neighborhood concerns with disdain. To prevent this type of bias, codes mandate an easily <br />attainable threshold. <br />s all contain this <br />prohibition: <br />occupation, business, trade, <br /> <br />EPC is blatantly out of compliance. Five of seven commissioners have building community ties. <br />Three commissioners (including the Chair) are architects or have an architectural background and <br />senior positions in architectural firms. Another commissioner is retired but has an architecture <br />degree. The Vice Chair-development opinions. She <br />maintains strong ties to housing advocacy groups populated by construction businesses. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.