The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPUBLIC COMMENTS (as of 8-8-17) BROWN Daren M From:Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, July 31, 2017 6:32 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Cc:Susan Hoffman Subject:Capital Hill PUD - Questions Hi Nick. I am a concerned Eugene citizen and live on Spring Blvd. just a few blocks from this proposed residential project. By way of background, I am retired now but through out my 30+ year career worked for various California & Nevada banks (Wells, US Bank, Bank of the West, etc.) financing large commercial, industrial and residential projects. Residential projects were both single family detached and condominiums, with unit totals from a few dozen to as many as several hundred. I have been going through the Tentative Application documents on your website regarding the proposed Capital Hill PUD project and there are several issues about which I have questions. What is your preferred method for discussing these issues?? Phone call?? Short meeting in your office?? By e-mail?? Issues include: Lack of draft CC&Rs going into the approval process. (I also assume there are no draft Rules/Regulations at this point.) I realize that this developer is only preparing the finished lots for sale and is not going to be involved with the vertical construction; however, as you know, CC&Rs can be critical in shaping the physical footprint of the project. They also insure the financial viability of the project (HOA budget, special assessments, maintenance of the open space, private road, etc.) and provide parameters for community living (regulations on maintenance of homes & yards, noise, home offices, storage, Airbnb, guest parking, etc.). If the project's site development is approved and goes forward, at what point will CC&Rs be drafted?? What happens if, after site development commences, the developer and the city cannot agree on the format of CC&Rs? Why not address this going in?? How will the potential for "single family attached" housing be handled?If a lot purchaser decides to build a 2 or 3 unit dwelling, will those units be further broken down into separate tax lots and sold separately after construction or is it assumed that they will be rentals and that the lot purchaser will be responsible for compliance with the city's requirements for multi-family units and his/her tenants' compliance with the CC&Rs, community rules & regs, etc.? Division of responsibility of the open space between the HOA and individual homeowners. What is driving this bifurcation?? With whom will the final responsibility rest if open space is polluted or otherwise in need of maintenance?? Especially for space at the east edge of lots that abut the Ribbon Trail. Will lot purchasers actually take title to this "open" space?? As far as I know, no (potential) elevations have been provided giving interested parties some insight as to the visual impact of 30' foot structures, 6 foot high fences, etc. which could potentially be allowed under the city's R-1 code. How will the project control architectural style, siding color, roof material, etc. so that there is some design uniformity? Guest parking. None? 1 Again, I realize that the request as presented is for lot development only; however, the ultimate goal is home building and creation of a cohesive community. At this point, at least to me, the path forward to that end needs some clarification. Hope you can help. Thanks for reading through this. Please advise by return e-mail what would be a good time over the next week or so to discuss these (and potentially other) issues with you. Susan Hoffman (shortgamesue@yahoo.com) Spring Blvd. Eugene 2 BROWN Daren M From:Michael Kuhn <mkuhn@uoregon.edu> Sent:Monday, June 12, 2017 4:06 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Capital Hill PUD Mr. Giello, I’m sure you’ve been hearing a lot from people in my neighborhood about the Capital Hill PUD: I’m sorry to add to your inbox. However, I think it’s important for me to reach out given some very concerning unanswered questions about the development. I live on Cresta de Ruta Street, just below Capital Drive. First of all, I want to say that there’s is definitely a responsible way that the land at the top of the hill should be developed. This is a convenient neighborhood for UO and a nice place to live. Development there should happen, especially given the need for new housing. More development would also hopefully bring more attention to road access issues in the neighborhood. I would be happy to see this happen. There are a variety of reasons why the development, as proposed, makes me uncomfortable. Like I said, I’m sure you’ve heard this before, so I want to keep things brief and clear, so I’ll just mention the two things that are the most important in my mind. 1. First and foremost: the road access issues. Living on capital hill, I’m always aware of fire and landslide risk. Half the homes on Cresta and Capital are on stilts that aren’t earthquake safe. The ice storm this December closed off access to our house for a number of days. In a lot of ways, this is a risky place to live. Getting off the hill quickly, or getting emergency vehicles up the hill quickly is a serious issue. The city cannot approve this project with its fingers crossed about emergencies. Frankly, I doubt the adequacy of access given the existing neighborhood capacity, much less with 40+ new families at the dead-end of a long, narrow, bumpy road. This says nothing about the impact of construction on the neighborhood given the need for street parking in bad weather when driveways are too steep to be used, and the lack of sidewalks. 2. Drainage. The hill collects a tremendous amount of water. There are places where after heavy rain, or heavy watering of the property at the top of the hill, springs drain directly out of the hillside. The large trees help soak up a lot of that, to prevent slides and erosion. Removing a lot of trees and the resulting canopy, as the proposal calls for, brings more water to the ground with less capacity for absorption. The steep slope and very wet soil are already problematic for landslide risk. New units on steep slopes, diverting more water straight into the hillside is genuinely frightening as a homeowner in the neighborhood. If the city and the developer have a convincing plan to deal with these issues: great. I really think our city and neighborhood would all benefit from safe development at the top of Capital Hill. But as is, the plan is really scary for me because it doesn’t take these issues seriously. Sincere thanks for your time and attention, Michael Kuhn, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Economics University of Oregon 1 BROWN Daren M From:FLOCK Gabriel Sent:Monday, March 27, 2017 3:11 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:FW: incident on Capital Drive FYI. CƩƚƒʹpfisher\[mailto:pfisher@continet.com\] {ĻƓƷʹMonday,March27,20173:10PM ƚʹFLOCKGabriel<Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹRe:incidentonCapitalDrive Thanks!Inowthinktherewasprobably50carsparkedonthesideasIhavetraveledthesamepathmanytimessince then. Ifyouareallowedtoshareyourtrafficassessment,L͸ķlovetohearit. Also,intheRGarticleoftoday,thewritermistakenlycalledthetwoarterialstreetsIwasalludingtoasintersecting streets.CapitalDrivehastwointersectingstreetsasyouknow,AltaVista&CrestaduRuta;butweonlyhaveone arterialstreet,SpringBoulevardtogetoffthehillincaseoffireorotheremergenciessinceCapitalDriveinAbut HendricksParkwhichislinedbyagravelroadownedby99.ΓğƷleastIthinkƷŷğƷ͸ƭright...thatźƷ͸ƭanEWEBroad, notacityƩƚğķΓƭƚƷŷĻƩĻ͸ƭnowayasecond,alternativearterialroadcouldbeputin.Thankfullyso,asitwouldruin HendricksParkhaveaslewofcarsgothroughthereeveryminuteoftheday. CƩƚƒʹFLOCKGabriel Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 2:11 PM To:pfisher Subject: RE: incident on Capital Drive HiPeggy, Thanksforsharingthis.L͸ƒalsopassingitalongtoNickGioelloastheplannerassignedtothisproject.HeandIdidasitevisit upthereonFriday,soIdohaveafreshsenseofhownarrowthestreetis.Icouldseehowanestatesalemightjamthings up!GF CƩƚƒʹpfisher\[mailto:pfisher@continet.com\] {ĻƓƷʹSaturday,March25,201712:07PM ƚʹFLOCKGabriel<Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹincidentonCapitalDrive HelloGabe.IŷğǝĻƓ͸Ʒspokentoyouforawhile,butIthoughtitbesttosharewithyouwhatjusthappenedtomeso youwouldhaveanexampleofwhathappensoccasionallyonCapitalDriveregardingthe5to6blindscurves stretching1/4milefromSpringBlvdtomyhouseat2808CapitalDrivejustpastAltaVistaStreet. BestWishes, PeggyCźƭŷĻƩΓ/ğƦźƷğƌHillPUDResponseTeam Thishappenedtoday,Saturday,3/25/17at11:15am.IturnedtheblindcurvenexttoAltaVista,&justasIdid,I raninto30carsallparkedontheupwardlaneblockinganentirelaneoftraffic.Iproceededaroundtwocars&a thirdoneapproachedmeinmyrightfullanethreateningmewithaHeadOnCollision.Ihonkedmyhornrepeatedly 1 butherefusedtobudge&startedtoapproachedmefurther.Iliterallyhadnowheretogoas3carswerepiledin backofme. a So,Iparkedmycaronthespot,gotout,&wenttotheŭǒǤ͸ƭwindow&explainedhehadtoturnaroundin drivewayasIĭƚǒƌķƓ͸Ʒbackout. Hecursedme&threwalotofinsultsatmebutwhatcouldIdoas3carswerepiledupinbackofme? Iexplainedtohimthereisnoparkingonblindcurvesasitstoodangerous;&weĭğƓ͸Ʒseearoundthemuntilweget rightontopofthem. Hesaid,Iwasaknowitall! Ireplied,Iwastryingnottobeinanaccidentwithhim,&heneededtobackdownasIhadnowheretogo. IhavenevereverwitnessedthisonCapitalDrivebeforeandIlivedherefor25years!AllduebecauseofanEstate SalesonAltaVista. 2 BROWN Daren M From:Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, April 09, 2017 10:40 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Cc:Tom Bruno; Kelley Blewster Subject:Re: Cap Hill PUD - Utilities Nick, Regarding my request for information related to sewer availablity and road suitability for the Cap Hill PUD, pls note: Criteria 7 of the PUD evaluation (9.8320) requires the PUD demonstrate adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, which would include sewers and roads. The stated purpose of the land use code is to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and to preserve and enhance the economic, social, and environmental qualities of the (9.0020). community. The stated goal of the Planning Department, according to their website is to: Facilitate community dialogue and understanding of land use planning issues Taken together, the above three objectives/codes imply that I, as a member of the public, should be able to dialogue and ask questions of the Planning Department about land use planning issues that could affect public, health, safety and general welfare of the public. The information that I requested in my prior email is very reasonable and pertinent to the topic, and should have been done already, assuming the City is duly conducting a review to determine if "public services" are available for the subject PUD. Furthermore, this information should be readily available to the public in order to assuage the public and neighbors, whom have every right to be concerned, about maintaining the protection of health, safety and general welfare with respect to the subject PUD application In view of the above, it is incumbent upon the Planning Department to field questions and request for information from the public, seek out the answers from the respective departments within the City, and then provide those answers, all of which should be done in a timely manner so as to allow the public to review the answers and have an opportunity to incorporate the sought after information within the PUD review deadlines for public input. It is unfair to place the burden of obtaining the request for information on the requester with the directive to "make a records request" as this is not a records request, it is a request for pertinent information pertaining to a pending land use application. Therefore, I respectfully repeat my request of my prior email of April 5 and ask that the Planning Department abide by its stated goal to "facilitate community dialogue" by "corralling the requested information" and responding to me in a timely manner. Nick, I appreciate your assistance on the initial request and realize this repeated request may not be within your authority to grant, in which case I hereby ask that you refer this request for information, pertinent to the Capital Hill PUD application, to the management of the Planning Department. Thx again, Brent Lorscheider, Leader of the Fairmount Neighbors Association PUD Response Effort 1 Request for the following information regarding the public sewer reaches that will receive the sewer discharge from the Capital Hill PUD, i.e., the 8 inch sewer at the point of connection and all downstream reaches: Location Design drawings As built drawings Capacity studies Age Condition Maintenance and cleaning history Spill or overflow records On Thursday, April 6, 2017 2:32 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Brent, I am told by Public Works staff that some of the information you are requesting is available at the Building Permit counter, “mostly location and as-builts”. You can walk in any time and request to see them. The depth and detail of the other parts of your request will require staff time to retrieve and organize. This must be requested as a records request through the City Recorder’s Office: https://www.eugene-or.gov/519/Public-Records I have attached a form for you. Thanks, Nick From: Brent Lorscheider \[mailto:lorsch2728@pacbell.net\] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 11:57 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com> Subject: Cap Hill PUD - Utilities Hi Nick, Can u pls forward this request to the appropriate department within the City: Request for the following information regarding the public sewer reaches that will receive the sewer discharge from the Capital Hill PUD, i.e., the 8 inch sewer at the point of connection and all downstream reaches: Location Design drawings As built drawings Capacity studies Age Condition Maintenance and cleaning history Spill or overflow records Request for the following information regarding the streets that will bear the traffic burden during construction and post construction of the Capital Hill PUD, i.e., Capital Drive, Spring Street and Fairmount: Design drawings As built drawings Capacity studies Age Maintenance history Thank you, Brent 2 3 BROWN Daren M From:amcivor@comcast.net Sent:Sunday, May 14, 2017 11:39 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Cc:lorsch2728@pacbell.net; John Terhes (jaterhes@gmail.com); conlon-mcivor, maura; David and Catherine Johnson Subject:Capital Hill PUD Attachments:IMG_2418.JPG; IMG_2419.JPG Hi Mr. Gioello, The neighbors are very opposed to the Capital Hill PUD proposed by Dr Dreyer. The roads are too narrow. Pedestrians and bicyclists use Spring St, a narrow road with no sidewalks, all the time. I have heard an estimate of 100,000 to 200,000 truckloads of building material/removal of trees and debris going up and down this road as this project is built. The project is too big, destroys habitat, and impacts on Hendricks Park, the best park in Eugene. Enclosed are a couple of photos I took this morning on Spring St. I recently saw a Comcast van parked in the road by the phone pole, and traffic backed up trying to get around it. Imagine a large dump truck. You'll notice the anti-PUDD signs. They line the neighborhood. I'm sure you will get more input from the neighborhood associations soon. Andy McIvor 2460 Malabar Drive Eugene 1 BROWN Daren M From:FAVREAU Eric J Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 8:33 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:FW: traffic on Capital Drive FYI,fortherecord. 9ƩźĭCğǝƩĻğǒͲ9L CivilEngineer1|Direct:(541)6822869 CityofEugene|PublicWorksEngineering 99EBroadway,Ste.400|Eugene,OR97401 CƩƚƒʹJasonBrown\[mailto:brownj11@uoregon.edu\] {ĻƓƷʹMonday,April17,20175:04PM ƚʹFAVREAUEricJ<Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹRe:trafficonCapitalDrive DearEric,Iappreciatetheresponse.IamfullyawarethatthePUDplanintendswidentheroadatthesiteofthePUD.Ithinkmyemail madeclearthatmyĭƚƓĭĻƩƓƭΓğƓķtheconcernsofeverysinglepersonwholivesonCapitalDriveexceptthePUDapplicant(yes,Ihave spokentothemğƌƌΜΓisthatCapitalDriveisnotsafeatitscurrentleveloftraffic.Adding44unitsandtheattendantconstructionwhile usto havingpeopleparkonCapitalwhereitdepartsfromSpringandrisestothetopofthehillissoobviouslynotsafeitcauses questionthemethodologyofyourstudy,WhenpeopleparkonCapital,youessentialnarrowtheroadtoonewaytraffic,andifyou significantlyincreasethetrafficwithheavyconstructiontrucksandadditionalresidentialtraffic,youhaveanunsafesituation.Muchof CapitalDrive(beforeyougettothetopofthehill)hasnosidewalks,whichmeansourchildrenwillhavenowaytowalktoschool.The busdoesnotcomeuphere,IassumebecausebecausethebottlenecksituationpreventsthebusfromturningğƩƚǒƓķΓğƭitdoesfor iseveryoneelseonthisroad,thatthetrafficproblemwillleadtoinjuryordeathifthisplanisallowed thefiretruck.Iamquitesure,as toproceedbasedonyourconclusions.Ifso,wewillholdyourofficepersonallyresponsible. Jason JasonBrown AssociateProfessorofCreativeWriting UniversityofOregon (917)7675386 CƩƚƒʹFAVREAUEricJ<Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us> 5ğƷĻʹMonday,April17,2017at3:47PM ƚʹJasonBrown<brownj11@uoregon.edu> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹRE:trafficonCapitalDrive HiJason, ThankyouforexpressingyourconcernsandobservationsregardingtrafficonCapitalDrive.Theapplicantisproposingtowiden CapitalDriveattheƭźƷĻ͸ƭfrontagetoЋЊ͸wide,whichisconsistentwiththeCityofEugenelocalstreetstandards.AЋЊ͸wide streetallowsroomfortwowaytrafficwithparkingononeside,whichwillhelpimprovetheexistingconditions.Theapplicantis alsoproposingaЍ͸widesidewalkononesideofthestreet,whichshouldresolveconcernsofthestreetnotbeingsafefor pedestrians. 1 Theapplicanthiredalicensedprofessionalengineertoperformthestreetsafetyandstreetconnectivitystudy.Thestudy includedasafetyevaluationatexistingandproposeddrivewayintersectionsthatwillreceivetrafficfromtheproposed developmentandonthefulllengthofCapitalDrivefromSpringBlvdtoHendricksPark.Thestudyconcludedthattheadditionof developmenttrafficwillnotimpactexistinglevelsofsafetyforroadusersorcreateunsafeconditions. Ihopethishelpsclarifythings.Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyfurtherquestions. Thanks, 9ƩźĭCğǝƩĻğǒͲ9L CivilEngineer1|Direct:(541)6822869 CityofEugene|PublicWorksEngineering 99EBroadway,Ste.400|Eugene,OR97401 CƩƚƒʹEugeneInternetPWE {ĻƓƷʹMonday,April17,20173:09PM ƚʹFAVREAUEricJ<Eric.J.Favreau@ci.eugene.or.us> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹFW:trafficonCapitalDrive Eric, I am forwarding this message for your review. Thank you, Dee CƩƚƒʹJasonBrown\[mailto:brownj11@uoregon.edu\] {ĻƓƷʹSunday,April16,201711:52AM ƚʹEugeneInternetPWE<PWEngineering@ci.eugene.or.us> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹtrafficonCapitalDrive IamwritingtoreportconcernsaboutCapitalDriveintheFairmontneighborhoodinEugene.MywifeandIhavelivedtherefortwo years,andinthattimewehaveexperiencedaboutfifteennearaccidents.OntwooccasionsIhadtotryontothecurbinordertoavoid anothercar,andinfourcasesIalmosthitpedestrianswalkingoncapitaldrivewhereitcurvesleftnearthetop.Thatisablind hitting curvethere,andevenifonetravelsunderthespeedlimitthereisnowayofseeingacarcomingfromtheoppositedirection.Orof seeingapedestrianontheroad.Halfofournearaccidentshaveoccurredatthisblindcurve.Theotherhalfoccurredfurtherdownon CapitalDrivewherepeopleareallowedtoparkonthestreet.Oneightoccasions,asrecentlyaslastweek,carsspeedingdownthehill pullaroundtheparkedcarsintooncomingtraffic.ThecarsonCapitalDrivefrequentlyparkonthenarrowsidewalk,forcing pedestriansontothestreet.Ihavealmosthitseveralstudentswalkinghomeatnightwhencarsarecomingintheoppositedirection. ThereisnosidewalkatthetopofCapitalDrive,andIķƚƓ͸Ʒseehowthestudentswholiveuptherearesupposedtogettoschool.The busdoesnotcomeuptoCapitalDrive,andifitdidtherewouldbenowayofturningaround. IunderstoodthelimitationsoftheaccesstothetopofCapitalwhenImovedtheretwoyearsago,butIneverwouldhaveconsidered thatthecitywouldallowsomeonetobuilda44unitPUDattheverytopofCapitalDrive.Apparently,atrafficstudyhasbeendone thatreportsthattherewouldbenoproblemwithsuchadevelopment.Thatconclusiondefiescommonsenseandtheexperienceof EVERYpersonwholivesonCapitalDrive.Welivetheredespitethefactthatitisalreadydangerous.Anenormousincreasein residencesandtheattendantconstructiontrafficwillmakethelocationcompletelyunsafe. Best,JasonBrown JasonBrown 2 AssociateProfessorofCreativeWriting UniversityofOregon (917)7675386 3 Sean T. Malone Attorney at Law 259 E. Fifth Ave., Tel. (303) 859-0403 Suite 200-C Fax (650) 471-7366 Eugene, OR 97401 seanmalone8@hotmail.com May 15, 2017 Via Email and First Class Mail Robin Hostick, Planning Director Eugene Planning and Development 99 W. Broadway Eugene, OR 97401 robin.a.hostick@ci.eugene.or.us Re: Response to ApplicantÓs March 3, 2017 letter for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD Plan Application, PDT 17-001, Map 18030431 Please accept this letter on behalf of the Joint FNA/LHVC Capitol Hill PUD Response Committee for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD plan application. In a March 3, 2017, letter, the applicant Ós attorney concludes that the Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application cannot meet 1 the clear and objective approval criteria contained in Eugene Code (EC) 9.8325 (i.e., the Needed Housing Track) for Needed Housing because of three provisions of the EC, including the (1) 30- foot landscape buffer, see EC 9.8325(3); (2) the prohibition on grading on 20% or greater slopes, seeEC 9.8325(5); and (3) the prohibition on development over 900-feet, see EC 9.8325(12)(a). March 3, 2017 Ltr. at 3-4. The applicant then alleges that because the applicant cannot satisfy these three clear and objective criteria for this particular application, the Needed Housing Statute is violated (seeORS 197.307(6)) and the City cannot apply the subjective criteria contained in EC 9.8320 (i.e., the General Track) to the application. As explained below, the applicant misunderstands the Needed Housing statute. Referring to ORS 197.307(6), the applicant alleges Ðthat under subsection (6) of the \[Needed Housing statute\], the City may only apply standards that are not clear and objective if the applicant also has the right to develop the property under clear and objective standards as provided for in ORS 197.307(4).Ñ March 3, 2017 letter at 2. The applicant misconstrue s ORS 197.307(6) because, under that provision, the applicant must Ðretain\[\] the option of proceeding under the approval process that \[applies only clear and objective criteria\].Ñ ORS 197.307(6). ORS 197.307(6) does not entitle the applicant to the Ðright to developÑ (i.e., approval of an application for development). It only requires that the applicant have the option of proceeding under clear and objective standards. The simple fact that the propertyÓs developable area is reduced (even significantly or entirely) because the application cannot satisfy certain clear and 1 There is not dispute that the three approval criteria listed are clear and objective. 1 objective criteria does not allow the applicant to waive or not comply with the subjective criteria under the alternative approval process (i.e., the General Track). The Needed Housing statute does not require that an application for needed housing be approved for every specific property. If the applicant cannot satisfy the clear and objective criteria contained in the CityÓs code, then LUBA has explained that the applicant has three options. In Home Builders AssÓn v. City of Eugene, LUBA explained that an applicant who cannot Ðavoid denial for failure to meet all clear and objective standardsÑ has three potential options.Home Builders AssÓn v. City of Eugene, ___ OR LUBA ___ (LUBA No. 2001-059 Feb. 28, 2002). The applicant can (1) Ðmodify the application so that it meets all clear and objective standards.Ñ Id.The applicant can (2) apply under a different procedure, if available. Id. (discussing a discretionary adjustment procedure). Finally, the applicant can (3) do nothing and allow the application to be denied.Id. An applicantÓs failure to satisfy all clear and objective criteria as it relates to a particular application for a unique property is not a basis for finding that the CityÓs criteria runs afoul of ORS 197.307(6)(a). It just means that the application, as submitted, must be modified, applied for under the alternative track, or be denied. If, as is the case here, the applicant seeks approval under the alternative process (here, referred to as the General Track, see EC 9.8320), then the applicant must satisfy the subjective criteria contained therein. The applicant Ðretains the option of proceeding Ñ under the Needed Housing Track (EC 9.8325). The fact that such an option may lead to a denial is a result of applying the CityÓs clear and objective standards to a particular piece of property. Some property is capable of greater development than others when it comes to EC 9.8325(3) (30-foot landscape buffer), EC 9.8325(5) (prohibition on grading on 20% or greater slopes); and EC 9.8325(12)(a) (prohibition on development over 900-feet). The simple fact that these clear and objective standards result in fewer development opportunities for this particular property does not in and of itself violate the Needed Housing statute. However, if the particular clear and objective standard is one that could not be satisfied in all instances (i.e., on any property), then such a clear and objective standard would violate ORS 197.307(6)(a) because the applicant for a PUD could ever satisfy the standard. Such a situation occurred in Home Builders, slip op at 48. There, a stormwater runoff provision that was clear and objective prohibited a PUD from creating Ðnegative impacts on natural drainage courses.Ñ Id. Because rain falls on all developments and all rain transports some pollutants, the standard would be violated in all instances.See id. (ÐPetitioners submit that rain falls on all development, and all water moving across ground carries some sediment, creates some turbidity, and has some erosional component, no matter how minute, and therefore no PUD could possibly comply with LUCU 9.8325(10).Ñ). LUBA agreed with the petitioners in Home Builders, Ðat least in the abstract, that imposing a clear and objective standard that is impossible or virtually impossible to 2 meet is a prohibition in the guise of a standard.Ñ Even though the City had a discretionary approval track (i.e, the General Track), LUBA found that such an Ðopti on is illusory if the clear and objective standards are impossible to satisfy.Ñ Here, the circumstances are distinguishable 2 LUBAÓs conclusion was somewhat complicated by the fact that LUBA determined that Ð\[i\]t may not be the case that LUCU 9.8325(10) is impossible to satisfy,Ñ but the city did not Ðrespond to \[the\] assignment of error at all.Ñ Slip op at 48. 2 because the particular application at issue cannot satisfy the particular clear and objective standards. Here, it is not the case that the clear and objective standards are violated in all instances. Similar to the case in Southeast Neighbors Neighborhood AssÓn v. City of Eugene, the applicantÓs frustration with the needed housing track as applied to this application, Ðdoes not conv ert an otherwise clear and objective standard into a standard that offends ORS 197.307(4).Ñ ___ Or LUBA ___ (LUBA No 2013-004 July 12, 2013). As explained above, applying subjective criteria contained in the General Track will not violate the Needed Housing statute because the applicant retains the option of applying only clear and objective criteria under the Needed Housing track. The applicantÓs arguments to the contrary in the March 3, 2017, letter should, therefore, be disregarded. Sincerely, Sean T. Malone Cc: Clients 3 BROWN Daren M From:fcassell@comcast.net Sent:Friday, March 10, 2017 11:34 AM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Re: question about capital hill pud planning process thank you very much. faris From: "GIOELLO Nick R" <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> To: fcassell@comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:56:54 AM Subject: FW: question about capital hill pud planning process Faris,Ǥƚǒ͸ƌƌprobablyfindthisattachmenthelpfulaswell. Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm. Associate Planner | Planning Division City of Eugene Planning & Development Avenue 99 West 10 th Eugene Oregon 97401 p 541.682.5453 f 541.682.5572 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us CƩƚƒʹGIOELLONickR {ĻƓƷʹFriday,March10,20179:18AM ƚʹ'fcassell@comcast.net'<fcassell@comcast.net> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹRE:questionaboutcapitalhillpudplanningprocess HelloFaris, Theapplicationwasreceivedon3/7/17.Wehave30daystoconductcompletenessreview,whichmeansreviewingallthe materialssubmittedanddecidingifthereisanythingmissingoradditionalinformationisneeded.L͸ķsaythat95%ofthetimewe deemtheapplicationincomplete.Itisthenuptotheapplicanttoresubmitthemissingoradditionalinformation.Every applicantisdifferentwhenitcomestothispart,soIĭğƓ͸Ʒevenfathomaguessonhowlongbeforetheyresubmit. Oncewehavealltheinformationandmaterials,theapplicationisdeemedcomplete.Wethensolicitreferralcommentsfrom agenciesandCityDepartments,suchasPublicWorksandtheFireDepartment.Astaffreportwillbewrittenbasedonthose referralcommentsandanindepthanalysisoftheapplicablecodecriteria.ApublichearingisscheduledbeforeaHearings Officialapproximately50to60daysaftertheapplicationisdeemedcomplete.Publictestimonyontheprojectisacceptedboth beforethehearinginwritingandverballyduringthehearing.Inmanycasesthepublicrecordisleftopenforseveralweeksafter thehearing.TheHearingsOfficialwillrenderadecisionwithin15daysfollowingthecloseofrecord. Hopethishelpsyouunderstandtheprocess.Contactmeifyouhavemorequestions, Nicholas R. Gioello, M. Adm. 1 Associate Planner | Planning Division City of Eugene Planning & Development 99 West 10 Avenue th Eugene Oregon 97401 p 541.682.5453 f 541.682.5572 nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us CƩƚƒʹfcassell@comcast.net\[mailto:fcassell@comcast.net\] {ĻƓƷʹWednesday,March08,20179:50AM ƚʹGIOELLONickR<Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹquestionaboutcapitalhillpudplanningprocess hello nick i'm a capital drive neighbor and received the planning department email about the capital hill pud recent submission of its plans. could you please tell me the steps and deadlines in the planning process for this pud to win approval? thank you, faris cassell 2 RESOLUTION ON THE PROPOSED CAPITAL HILL PUD Fairmount Neighbors Association Members Whereas, the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD)currently proposes to subdivide 5 existing lots into 35 building lots with 43 dwelling units, an increase from 20 lots proposed in 2013during the annexation phase, and Whereas, the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) of 20 lots, proposed in 2013, raised many neighborhood concerns at that time, and continues to raise neighborhood concerns, and Whereas, the proposed PUD would have only one practical access route via Spring and Capital, and one impractical alternative route, via Spring, Madrona and Cresta de Ruta, over roadways that do not meet the City’s current design standards and are located in high landslide risk areas, and Whereas the PUD proposes an inherently dangerous road intersection, on the only practical route, at the existing blind curve just past 2808 Capital Drive, and Whereas, the proposed PUD increases the risk of landslides on the steep slopes as a result of the extensive excavation required for building roads, sewers, storm drains, and building pads, and Whereas, the PUD proposes extensive tree removal including 42% of all trees, and Whereas the proposed PUD is inconsistent with the South Hill Study’s goal of limiting development above 901 foot in elevation in order to insure maximum preservation of the natural character of the south hills, and Whereas, the proposed PUD will increase traffic on the aforementioned streets, and on streets adjacent to the access route, which will exacerbate existing congested conditions on these streets thereby endangering public safety for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and Whereas, the proposed PUD could impede emergency response efforts due to the aforementioned traffic concern and will increase the probability of emergency events that will occur due to additional occupants, and Whereas, the proposed PUD will increase traffic and noise, and will disrupt and degrade the quality of the natural environment and area surrounding the site. Now therefore be it resolved that the Fairmont Neighborhood Association Members recommend the proposed PUD be denied unless the concerns above can be adequately addressed by the developer.