My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Open Record 3rd Period (applicant final response)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Open Record 3rd Period (applicant final response)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2019 1:50:01 PM
Creation date
7/15/2019 1:50:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Capital Hill PUD
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
7/15/2019
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
Eugene Planning Commission <br />July 15, 2019 <br />Page 2 <br />landslides will occur if development occurs as proposed. Nothing in the GeoSciencematerial <br />states that properly engineered foundations will still result in landslide activity. The GeoScience <br />material simply reiterates what DOGAMI’s studies –old and new –have stated, which is that the <br />steep-sloped areas on and around the subjectproperty and throughout the South Hills have a <br />relatively high risk of landslide activity. The concerns expressed by materials submitted during <br />the rebuttal period simply reiterate that fact and express Neighbor’s concerns. <br />The geotechnical analysis of the subject property and the potential effects of on-and off- <br />site impacts that could flow from the proposal have been thoroughly examined. Could more be <br />done? Sure, one can always do more. But would more give you, the decision-maker, any further <br />useful information?No.The geotechnical evidence in the record has already led the Applicants <br />to change their proposal to avoid areas their own geotechnical analysis concluded and <br />recommended should be avoided. Branch Engineering has played it straight throughout this <br />process. They mademade recommendations regarding site-specific construction requirements, <br />which are now folded into Condition of Approval 10. Most importantly,Branch Engineering <br />certified that the geologic conditions of the property, whendeveloped consistent with their <br />recommendations, will be safe. The Planning Commission should conclude, based on Branch <br />Engineering’s analysis that the proposed PUD does not pose a significant risk to public health, <br />safetyand welfare and will not lead to adverse on-site or off-site impacts. <br />Other issues raised by neighbors, such as environmental, safety and extreme weather <br />event concerns are outside the scope of the remand proceeding and should be dismissed by the <br />Planning Commission. <br />The Planning Commission should approve the Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) and adopt <br />the attached findings and conditions of approval. <br />Sincerely, <br />Bill Kloos <br />Bill Kloos <br />Attachments: <br />Attachment 1–Applicants’ Revised Draft Findings for Capital Hill PUD <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.