Eugene Planning Commission <br />July 9, 2019 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />development of the PUD. They are typical conditions for houses located at the base of tall <br />hillsideswhere water inevitably flows. <br />The questions one should ask about the statements, for which answers are not included in <br />the record, are: Did any of the houses that are undergoing settling problems have a geotechnical <br />study conducted for the building site to ensure an appropriate foundation was constructed? Was <br />appropriate foundation waterproofing, that recognized the inherent wet conditions for those <br />properties, applied during construction?Was a foundation drainage system installed? If so, is it <br />currently functional? Who was the contractor that constructed the foundation and what were <br />their qualifications?The issuesraisedhave less to do with the proposed PUD than they do with <br />the existing construction and conditions, particularly given that the residences are on the opposite <br />side of the Ridgeline Trail than the proposaland are unlikely to be directly influenced by surface <br />runoff from the present, undeveloped slope. <br />As the Branch Engineering Technical Memorandum explains, the standard for this <br />proposal is that it nothave off-site adverse impacts, which the city had interpreted to mean that <br />there are not greater impacts after development than before development.Down-stream flows in <br />open streams and closed pipes cannot increase as a result of the development. They do not.As <br />the evidence in the record and theTechnical Memorandum demonstrates, the proposal more than <br />mitigates for the stormwater impacts that will flow from impervious surfaces,anditwill have <br />less of a stormwater flow impact to the neighboring properties after development than it does <br />before development. <br />While one may feel for the Floral Hill Drive neighbors and the issues they currently deal <br />with, the evidence in the record is that the proposal will not cause new problems for them and <br />will not aggravate any of the alleged existing problems. Their arguments provide no basis for <br />the Planning Commission to deny the proposal. <br />Condition of Approval 10 <br />Neighbors make multiple arguments concerning Condition of Approval 10. One <br />neighbor claims that Condition of Approval 10 is a contradiction to EC 9.6710(3), (Hoffman), <br />and Neighbors’ attorney argues, alternatively,thatapplicants propose “to do away” with <br />Condition 10 (Malone, p. 2) and that the findings inadequately address Condition 10 (Malone, p. <br />3). Each is addressed in turn. <br />Applicants are not proposing to getrid of Condition of Approval 10. Applicants do, <br />however, urge the Planning Commission to approve Condition of Approval 10 similar to the one <br />imposed by the Hearings Officer, and to get rid of the poison pillthat theNeighbors convinced <br />the Planning Commission to impose during the prior proceedings. The condition the Hearings <br />Officialimposed and the slight modification to that proposed here are lawful. Condition 10 is <br />similar to conditions imposed on most South Hills PUDs. Itrequires a house site-specific <br />geotechnical report and itrequires any building permit application for construction ofa house(or <br />PEPI project)to comply with the recommendations contained in that report. Such conditions can <br />be imposed once the decision-maker concludes at the PUD stage thatthe evidence demonstrates <br />7 <br />