welfare. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed PUD fails to satisfy the <br />requirements set forth under EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c). <br />Alternate finding <br />: Page 9 through 11, beginning with the bolded and underlined <br />Remand Issue #3: Condition of Approval 10 CONCLUSION <br />to above the bolded should <br />be deleted because the applicant has failed to satisfy other criteria. However, the Planning <br />Commission could also simply retain Condition of Approval 10 in addition to the denial. To <br />remove the condition altogether in light of any approval would put the public at risk by failing to <br /> <br />resolve the geologic issues raised by GeoSciences and well-understood by LUBA. <br />Alternate finding <br />: Page 11 under the bolded CONCLUSION should be replaced with <br />the following: <br />The Eugene Planning Commission has reviewed the record and the issues remanded by LUBA <br />and has voted to reverse the decision of the Hearings Office to conditionally approve the <br />tentative PUD for Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1). <br />Accordingly, the PUD is hereby denied, on this ___ day of ____________, 2019. <br />Please add these alternative findings to the record, as well as the attached proposed <br />findings of the applicant that have been numbered in the bottom right corner. I respectfully <br />request that the Planning Commission deny the application because substantial evidence exists to <br />demonstrate that the PUD is a significant risk to the public health and safety and the applicant <br />has not adequately reviewed both on-site and off-site impacts of the development. Moreover, the <br />off-site impacts have not been reviewed by an engineering geologist. For the above reasons, the <br />application on remand must be denied because the applicant has not satisfied. <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Sean T. Malone <br />Cc: <br />Clients <br /> <br />5 <br />