Planning Commission Staff Report (8-6-19)

application with conditions and modified Condition of Approval #10. The Planning Commission's June 14, 2018 Final Order is included as Attachment A. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to LUBA by both the applicant and a group of opponents consisting of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, and the Joint Response Committee of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (the Neighbors). In November 2018, LUBA issued a decision on the appeal. The Board agreed with the majority of the Planning Commission's decision, but ultimately remanded the decision back to the City to allow the Planning Commission to adopt more adequate findings based on substantial evidence, regarding compliance with EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3) (C).2 LUBA's Final Opinion and Order is included as Attachment B. The applicant appealed LUBA's decision to the Court of Appeals, and on February 27, 2019 the Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA's decision without opinion. On May 7, 2019, the applicant requested that the City begin to process the remand. On May 19, 2019, Planning staff mailed a "Notice of Opportunity to Submit Written Testimony to the Eugene Planning Commission - Limited Issues" to the applicant and interested parties. A copy of the Notice is provided as Attachment C. The notice provided that the Planning Commission would accept "written testimony that addresses the Capital Hill Tentative PUD application's compliance with the geotechnical requirements of Eugene Code (EC) sections 9.8320(6) and 9.9630(3)." The City intentionally limited the scope of permissible new testimony to testimony that is relevant to the scope of issues set out in LUBA's remand. For ease of reference, staff has provided a summary of all testimony received during the open record period associated with the remand. That summary is included as Attachment D. The applicant has objected to some of the testimony submitted as falling outside the scope of permissible testimony as described in the notice. The Planning Commission will need to decide whether to reject that testimony. Deliberations will start with that task, as well as other preliminary procedural matters that need to be addressed before substantive deliberations begin. SCOPE OF REMAND The approval criteria applicable to this remand are EC 9.8320(6) and the South Hills Study's specific recommendations for development standards related to review of on-site and off-site impact of the development. EC 9.8320(6) requires that: The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to 2 As noted above, although LUBA's remand references EC 9.9630, that code section does not apply directly to this tentative PUD application. EC 9.9630 only applies to applications for subdivisions, partitions and site review. See EC 9.9500. However, the policies of the South Hills Study that are codified in EC 9.9630 are directly applicable to the tentative PUD application through EC 9.8320(2), so the application must comply with the same approval criteria included in EC 9.9630(3). Page 2