HomeMy WebLinkAbout1st Open Record Period: Public Testimony (3-19-18 to 3-21-18)
BROWN Daren M
From:Peter Craycroft <petercraycroft@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:00 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Capital Hill PUD: Peter Craycroft's Testimony
Date: 21 March 2018
To: Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
City of Eugene Planning and Development
th
Ave, Eugene, OR 97401
99 West 10
nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us.
From: Peter Craycroft
th
1991 E. 19 Avenue., Eugene, OR 97403
Re: Objection to Capital Hill PUD
This letter is in regards to the Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17 Î 01). I ask that this letter be entered into the record
and that receipt be confirmed.
I testified against the Capital Hill PUD on March 7, 2018. My testimony began:
ÐI put up a website, www.savecapitalhill.com to make my position clear.Ñ The content of www.save capitalhill.com
is my testimony. Please direct the Hearing Official to review the site. I am an expert on Graphic Communication.
The graphics in the Testimony section is particularly useful in understanding the Geologic testimony. The
Development section is very helpful in putting the entire project in its historical context. The Capital Hill section
puts all there important photos in one place. The site in general puts the entire project in context.
Thank you and kind regards,
Peter
1
BROWN Daren M
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:46 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:SEMPLE Emily
TO: Ms. Gustafson-Lucker, Hearings Official, re PDT 17-1
Subject:
Dear Ms. Gustafson,
Please reject copies of two e-mails apparently placed before you by planning staff despite my
explicit instruction that these were "not for the record."
The first e-mail is dated March 1, 2018 on page 75 of the "Public Testimony (Opposition)."
The second e-mail is dated March 7, 2018 on page 16 of the "Public Comments submitted prior to
hearings official hearing."
Mr. Gioello acted well outside the bounds of professional planning ethics to be submitting material
without permission and leaving the impression that I was placing these e-mails before the Hearings
Official.
Unfortunately, this type of behavior is not uncommon in the current Eugene Planning Division.
Thank you,
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
CC: Emily Jerome, Eugene City Councilor, Ward 1
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
1
BROWN Daren M
From:Sean Malone <seanmalone8@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:45 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP)
Subject:FNA/LHVC Post-Hearing Testimony for the Capitol Hill PUD
Malone to Eugene re Capitol Hill PUD 3.21.18.pdf
Attachments:
Mr.Gioello,
PleasefindattachedposthearingtestimonyonbehalfoftheFairmountNeighborhoodAssociationandLaurel
HillValleyCitizensfortheCapitolHillTentativePUDApplication,PDT17001.Pleaseaddtheattachedtothe
record.
Thankyou,
SeanMalone
AttorneyatLaw
259E.FifthAve.
Suite200C
Eugene,OR97401
ph.303.859.0403
seanmalone8@hotmail.com
1
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
March 21, 2018
Via Email and First Class Mail
Eugene Hearings Official
c/o Eugene Planning and Development
th
99 W. 10 Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
Re: FNA/LHVC Post-Hearing Testimony and 5, 2018
letter for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD Plan Application, PDT 17-001, Map
18030431
Please accept this letter on behalf of the Joint Fairmount Neighborhood Association and
Laurel Hill Valley Citizens for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD plan application.
I. The applicants needed housing arguments in its March 5, 2018, letter are mistaken
The applicant alleges that, despite applying under the General or discretionary track
standards, the application should only be subject to clear and objective standards. To get to this
conclusion, the applicant makes several errors, as outlined below.
First, the 2017 amendments to the needed housing statute are not pertinent to the question
before the hearings official, so the Hearings Official can be disregard the applicants discussion
of the 2017 amendments.
Second, the Corvallis Enforcement Order is inapposite because in that case the applicant
had no alternative that did not include the discretionary Planned Development overlay zone. The
applicant in Corvallis did not have an option to pursue its proposal under only clear and objective
standards. Here, the applicant retains that option. The fact that pursuing approval under clear
and objective criteria may result in fewer buildable lots or even a denial does not nullify the
General or discretionary track. The applicant here can modify the application to satisfy clear and
objective criteria, apply under a different procedure, or have the application denied. See Home
, ___ OR LUBA ___ (LUBA No. 2001-059 Feb. 28, 2002). The
applicant is not entitled to approval under the clear and objective standards, just the opportunity
to satisfy those standards.
1
Third, the applicant relies on Homebuilders, see March 5, 2018, letter, Page 8, but that
case is not on point. Just because a particular proposal on a unique property cannot satisfy a
The standard in Homebuilders that
prohibited a PUD from creating negative impacts on natural drainage courses.
Homebuilders, slip op at 48. Because rain falls on all developments and all rain transports some
pollutants, the standard would be violated in all instances. See id.
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
The problem in Homebuilders was not
inherent in the particular property or proposal at issue but rather that the standard could not be
satisfied on any property. Therefore, the problem in Homebuilders is not present here.
Fourth,
thi
2018, letter, page 4. There is no such requirement placed on the Hearings Official by statute or
code, and it is not the duty of the Hearings Official to design t
countless land use tools available to the applicant to remedy the situation. It is not necessary for
the Hearings Official to make such a determination because the underlying principle is incorrect
there is simply nothing in the needed housing statute that requires any proposal on a particular
unit of land be approvable under clear and objective criteria. If the applicant cannot satisfy the
clear and objective criteria, then that is the applicants failure.
that because the applicant applied under the
General or discretionary track, the application must be assessed under the discretionary criteria.
with the clear and objective standards or satisfy the discretionary standards.
II. The South Hills Study area applies to the subject application
The applicant makes a strained argument that the South Hills Study does not apply to the
subject property. As with the above argument, the applicant has missed the mark. The initial
th
resolution adopting the South Hills Study applied south of 18 Avenue above an elevation of 500
feet. The preliminary report understood new land would be brought within the City limits and it
accordingly looked to areas within and outside the City limits. The applicant is essentially
arguing that when land is annexed into the City, the local government must re-adopt its code or
plans to apply to that newly annexed area. Regardless of that inefficient and unworkable
argument, the South Hills Study policies are enshrined in the code, the code applies within the
City limits, and this property is within the City limits. reasonable
cluding Lots 200, 300, and 400)
th
they became subject to the South Hills Study if they were located south of 18 Avenue and
The contrary approach advocated by the
applicant is not only unworkable, but there is no support for it in statute or code.
2
III. The applicant cannot rely on undefined CCRs to satisfy approval criteria
Generally, an applicant must provide enough evidence for a finding that a particular
standard is satisfied or that is feasible to satisfy a standard by imposing conditions necessary to
ensure that the standard will be satisfied. Here, as demonstrated in Exhibit D of the Response
Committee Submission, the applicant appears to be relying on CCRs as conditions necessary to
ensure that standards are satisfied. The applicant must set forth the particular CCRs it proposes
if they are intended to satisfy approval criteria as conditions of approval. Without seeing the
particular CCRs, it is impossible to determine their feasibility. Because the CCRs have not been
provided, the city must provide notice and opportunity for hearing in a subsequent stage to
determine whether it is feasible for CCRs to satisfy applicable standards.
In Rhyne v. Multnomah County, LUBA No. 92-058, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447-448 (1992),
LUBA explained the applicable law when a local government defers findings to another stage:
questions concerning whether a particular approval criterion is satisfied, a local
government essentially has three options potentially available. First, it may find that
although the evidence is conflicting, the evidence nevertheless is sufficient to support a
finding that the standard is satisfied or that feasible solutions to identified problems exist,
and impose conditions if necessary. Second, if the local government determines there is
insufficient evidence to determine the feasibility of compliance with the standard, it could
on that basis deny the application. Third, if the local government determines that there is
insufficient evidence to determine the feasibility of compliance with the standard, instead
of finding the standard is not met, it may defer a determination concerning compliance
with the standard to the second stage. In selecting this third option, the local government
is not finding all applicable approval standards are complied with, or that it is feasible to
do so, as part of the first stage of approval (as it does under the first option described
above). Therefore, the local government must assure that the second stage approval
process to which the decision making is deferred provides the statutorily required notice
and hearing, even though the local code may not require such notice and hearing for
second stage decisions in other circumstances. Holland v. Lane County, 16 Or LUBA
583, 596-97 (1988).
Id.; Township 13 Homeowners Assoc. v. City of Waldport, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA Nos. 2006-
171/172, Jan. 18, 2007), Slip op *7-Rhyne, it was impermissible for the city to
completely defer the analysis required by \[the local code\] to a later stage of the approval process
Here, the Hearings Official can deny
the application because the undefined CCRs do not demonstrate compliance, or the Hearings
Official may find that a subsequent stage of approval that includes the statutorily required notice
and hearing.
IV. Conclusion
For the above reasons, the arguments contained in the applicants letter of March 5, 2018,
should be rejected.
3
Sincerely,
Sean T. Malone
Cc:
Clients
4
BROWN Daren M
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:27 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:SOMMERS Lauren A
Testimony for record for PDT 17-1 (Capital Hill PUD)
Subject:
Attachments:Favreau email 2-13-18.pdf; Favreau email and Dolan Findings 2-28-18.pdf; Favreau
email and Referral Comments 2-12-13.pdf; Favreau email and Referral Comments
12-8-17.pdf; PW Referral 2-12-18 with edit.pdf; 2018_03_21 Letter to Gustafson-
Lucker.pdf; Exhibit A.jpg; Exhibit B1.jpg; Exhibit B2.jpg; Exhibit C.jpg; Exhibit D.jpg;
TamaraRichardsEmail.pdf
The linked image cannot
be displayed. The file may
have been moved,
renamed, or deleted.
Verify that the link points
to the correct file and
location.
_03072018-870.pdf
Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and attachments and enter them all into the record for
PDT 17-1.
The attached letter to the Hearings Official describes the issues.
The file _03072018-870.pdf is transmitted via Google Drive.
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
---------- Forwarded message ----------
RICHARDS Tamara N
From: <Tamara.N.Richards@ci.eugene.or.us>
Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:53 AM
Subject: Public Records request
To: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Cc: Eugene Public Records Requests <PUBLICRECORDSREQUESTS@ci.eugene.or.us>, SOMMERS Lauren
A <Lauren.A.Sommers@ci.eugene.or.us>
Mr. Conte,
This email responds to your public records requests:
1.Dated March 11, 2018: “Specifically in electronic form only. The FINAL form and version of the
staff report for PDT 17-1 that was dated: ‘November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018’. This
1
electronic file must not be altered in any manner during production of the response to this public records
request”; and
2.Dated March 14, 2018: “Specifically in electronic form only. The e-mail received by Nick Gioello
with the attached final version of the Public Works ‘Referral Response’ for PDT 17-1 that was dated:
‘November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018.’ The attached file must not be altered in any manner
during production of the response to this public records request.Simply forwarding the e-mail and
attachment directly to me is the simplest and preferred response to this request.
Although your March 11, 2018, request is for a “staff report,” based on the description of the requested
document, (i.e. that it is dated November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018), I believe you are actually
requesting the Public Works Referral Comments for the Capital Hill PUD application, and not the “staff report”
for that application. However, if you were in fact requesting the staff report, here is the link to the staff report
that was placed before the Hearings Official http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/DocumentDetails?file=PDT-17-
0001&id=2171749.
The initial referral comments submitted by Public Works and dated 11-30-17 were attached to an email sent to
Nick Gioello on 12-8-17. A copy of that email with the referral comments is attached. On 2-12-18, Nick
Gioello received revised comments via email from Eric Favreau. A copy of that email and the revised
comments are attached to this response. Nick queried Eric about one section of those comments (EC
9.6815(2)(f) and received an email on 2-13-18 (see attached email) with a minor revision altering one sentence
which Nick pasted into the revised 2-12-18 Referral Comments. The 2-12-18 version of the Referral Comments
with the 2-13-18 minor revision is also attached to this email.
On 2-28-18, the day the Staff Report was due, Nick received an email from Eric Favreau with additional
language regarding “Dolan findings” for inclusion in the referral comments and the Staff Report. A copy of
that email is attached to this response. The entire text of the Referral Comments (as revised on 2-13-18) and the
Dolan findings are included in the Staff Report, which is available in the link provided above. The two attached
emails from Eric Favreau constitute “The e-mail received by Nick Gioello with the attached final version of the
Public Works ‘Referral Response’ for PDT 17-1 that was dated: ‘November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28,
2018.’”
Nick Gioello combined the text of the Referral Comments (as revised on 2-13-18) and the Dolan findings into a
PDF document labeled “November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018.” That document is available online
athttp://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/DocumentDetails?file=PDT-17-0001&id=1972166. That document was
not placed before the Hearings Official but contains information virtually identical to that included in the Staff
Report that was placed before the Hearings Official.
2
TamaraRichards
ExecutiveAssistant|AdminAnalyst
Planning&Development
CityofEugene
Ph.541.682.8817
3
Gmail-Public Records requestPage1 of2
Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Public Records request
Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:53
RICHARDS Tamara N
<Tamara.N.Richards@ci.eugene.or.us>
AM
To: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Cc: Eugene Public Records Requests <PUBLICRECORDSREQUESTS@ci.eugene.or.us>, SOMMERS
Lauren A <Lauren.A.Sommers@ci.eugene.or.us>
Mr. Conte,
This email responds to your public records requests:
1.Dated March 11, 2018: “Specifically in electronic form only. The FINAL form and version of
the staff report for PDT 17-1 that was dated: ‘November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018’.
This electronic file must not be altered in any manner during production of the response to this
public records request”; and
2.Dated March 14, 2018: “Specifically in electronic form only. The e-mail received by Nick
Gioello with the attached final version of the Public Works ‘Referral Response’ for PDT 17-1 that
was dated: ‘November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018.’ The attached file must not be
altered in any manner during production of the response to this public records request. Simply
forwarding the e-mail and attachment directly to me is the simplest and preferred response to this
request.
Although your March 11, 2018, request is for a “staff report,” based on the description of the requested
document, (i.e. that it is dated November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018), I believe you are actually
requesting the Public Works Referral Comments for the Capital Hill PUD application, and not the “staff
report” for that application. However, if you were in fact requesting the staff report, here is the link to the
staff report that was placed before the Hearings Officialhttp://pdd.eugene-
or.gov/LandUse/DocumentDetails?file=PDT-17-0001&id=2171749.
The initial referral comments submitted by Public Works and dated 11-30-17 were attached to an email
sent to Nick Gioello on 12-8-17. A copy of that email with the referral comments is attached. On 2-12-18,
Nick Gioello received revised comments via email from Eric Favreau. A copy of that email and the revised
comments are attached to this response. Nick queried Eric about one section of those comments (EC
9.6815(2)(f) and received an email on 2-13-18 (see attached email) with a minor revision altering one
sentence which Nick pasted into the revised 2-12-18 Referral Comments. The 2-12-18 version of the
Referral Comments with the 2-13-18 minor revision is also attached to this email.
On 2-28-18, the day the Staff Report was due, Nick received an email from Eric Favreau with additional
language regarding “Dolan findings” for inclusion in the referral comments and the Staff Report. A copy of
that email is attached to this response. The entire text of the Referral Comments (as revised on 2-13-18)
and the Dolan findings are included in the Staff Report, which is available in the link provided above. The
two attached emails from Eric Favreau constitute “The e-mail received by Nick Gioello with the attached
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=01bc0b4fc8&jsver=-9j_g79i2Ak.en.&view=pt...3/21/2018
Gmail-Public Records requestPage2 of2
final version of the Public Works ‘Referral Response’ for PDT 17-1 that was dated: ‘November 30, 2017 –
Revised February 28, 2018.’”
Nick Gioello combined the text of the Referral Comments (as revised on 2-13-18) and the Dolan findings
into a PDF document labeled “November 30, 2017 – Revised February 28, 2018.” That document is
available online athttp://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/DocumentDetails?file=PDT-17-0001&id=1972166.
That document was not placed before the Hearings Official but contains information virtually identical to
that included in the Staff Report that was placed before the Hearings Official.
541.682.8817
5 attachments
Favreau email 2-13-18.pdf
75K
Favreau email and Dolan Findings 2-28-18.pdf
421K
Favreau email and Referral Comments 2-12-13.pdf
2702K
Favreau email and Referral Comments 12-8-17.pdf
2541K
PW Referral 2-12-18 with edit.pdf
2657K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=01bc0b4fc8&jsver=-9j_g79i2Ak.en.&view=pt...3/21/2018
BROWN Daren M
From:Deborah Skell <deborahskella@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:34 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Today
Spring boulevard in both directions. Please enter this in the record and let me know you have received another compelling
illustration of why this PUD must not happen.
Deborah Skell
2400 Malabar Drive
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sent from my iPhone
Deborah Skell, GCFP
7
BROWN Daren M
From:Gunnar Schlieder <gunnar@geoscience-or.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 2:03 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R; Tom Bruno; Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman; Nate Teich; C.W.
Murchison; Sheryl Kelly; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Jason
Brown; Brent Lorscheider; Becky Dorsey
Subject:Capital Hill PUD
Hi Nick: I have placed two additional items into the Google Drive folder for Capital Hill PUD. One is
an addendum to my previous report, and one is a short memo regarding road grade. Could you
please confirm receipt of those and that they have been placed in the record? If this won't work let
me know soon and I'll have to bring them in on a CD or DVD.
Thanks
Gunnar
Capital Hill PUD - Google Drive
Capital Hill PUD - Google Drive
Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG
(541) 607-5700 (ofc)
(541) 729-4271 (cell)
1
March 21, 2018
Ms. Virginia Gustafson-Lucker
Hearings Official
c/o Nick Gioello
Planning
City of Eugene
via email: nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
RE: CAPITAL DRIVE GRADE AT SOUTH PORTION, PROPOSED CAPITAL HILL PUD
Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker:
I am writing this memorandum to ensure that one seemingly minor item regarding the proposed
Capital Hill receives the attention it deserves. I am referring to the fact that the PUD layout, as
currently proposed, requires a shared driveway for the two southernmost lots (18&19 on some maps,
19&20on others) which would enter Capital Drive a the blind hair-pin curve adjacent to the
southernmost part of the proposed PUD.
When I visited the site in 2014, I used a clinometer to determine the street grade at this corner, which
turned out to be 16 to 17% for a significant distance around the curve. This measurement is
confirmed on DOGAMIs LiDAR Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for the area. Attached is a figure
showing the slope classes (grade) from the LiDAR DEM with yellow denoting 14% or lower slopes,
light orange denoting 15%, darker orange 16%, and 17% or greater shown in red.
It is clear from the attached map that a band of 17%+ slope crosses the entire width of Capital Drive
at the proposed driveway access location.
This is not permitted per Eugene Code 9.6735 (2), which requires that:
Access from a public street to a development site shall be located in
accordance with EC 7.420 Access Connections Location.
EC 7.420 (1)(b) requires:
March 21, 2018
Ms. Virginia Gustafson-Lucker
Hearings Official
c/o Nick Gioello
Planning
City of Eugene
via email: nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us
RE: ADDENDUM TO GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF CAPITAL HILL PUD
Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker:
I am writing this addendum to my testimony and report presented on March 7 regarding the
geotechnical aspects of the application for Tentative PUD for the Capital Hill PUD. My review of
the applicants reports regarding the geotechnical feasibility of constructing the PUD in a manner
protective of public health, safety, and welfare I determined that it would be appropriate to ascertain
whether actual field evidence exists to support my mapping of slope movements in the vicinity of
the proposed PUD.
As a result, I decided to look for such evidence along Floral Hill Drive, located at or nearthe toe of
the east-facing slope below the proposed PUD. And such evidence does indeed exist. As outlined
in my previous testimony, there areseveral lobate geomorphic/topographic features in the lower part
of the slope which I interpreted as slope movement deposits. It turns out that Floral Hill Drive,
which runs in a perfectly straight N-S right-of-way for approximately 1/4 mile below the proposed
PUD shows pavement offsets toward the east at each of the locations where it crosses one of the
lobes. This fact is even evident when looking at the road closely on Google Earth (seeattached
annotated Google Earth image). It is quite evident also when standing on the road (see attached
photos demonstrating the offset). The road appears to have been offset at least 2 to 3 feet in an
easterly direction. In addition, the pavement shows evidence of spreading inthese areas with
concomitant cracks forming parallel to the roadway.
In addition, at the south end of the 1/4-mile straight section, the road makes a 90-degree curve to the
east (when traveling south). This curveis located at the boundary of two of the lobes mapped on my
previous geomorphic landslide maps (see second attached annotated Google Earth image).
BROWN Daren M
From:Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 10:04 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:Susan Hoffman; Cathy Johnson
CHPUD Additional Testimony on Criteria 8
Subject:
Attachments:Crit 8 Response to Staff Rpt for HO 032118 PDF.pdf
Hi Nick. Attached to this email is a PDF file that contains additional testimony from the Response
Committee on Criteria 8, especially as addressed in the Staff Report. Please confirm back to me via
email that this testimony is entered into the record. Thank you.
1
Date: March 21, 2018
To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
From: Susan Hoffman, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee
Re: Capital Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1)
Dear Hearings Official:
This email constitutes additional testimony regarding:
EC 9.8320 (8). Residents of the PUD will have sufficient usable recreation area and open
space that is convenient and safely accessible.
The February 28, 2018 Staff Report discusses Criteria 8 on Page 36 of 62. (Of note is that the
Staff Report devotes only 4 sentences to this Criteria.)
The Committee presents its discussion of Criteria 8 on Pages 85 through 91 of the March 7, 2018
Response Document, with additional testimony presented below:
The Staff Report indicates that fficient usable
recreation area and open space in compliance with the above standard.(Emphasis added.)
The Staff Report immediately continues with hed by Tracts B, C,
and D on the flatter portion of the site will provide the opportunity for relatively easy access for
passive
(Emphasis added.)
The Committee points out the following:
The Response Comm
D on Pages 88 and 89. In summary, the areas, while located in the generally flatter area of the
project, are NOT, in and of themselves, flat.
Tract C at approximately 1,140 SF and an approximate slope of 35% is the steepest and the
smallest. As a point of reference, 1,200 SF is the size of a generous 3-car garage. Tract C is the
green area to the right in the picture below. It is located at the intersection of Capital Drive and
Cupola Drive in the corner of Lot 21.
See screenshot below taken from Site Plan L 3.1.
Page 1
Tract D below Tract C below
Particularly distressing about this screenshot is that, although the 8/22/17 Application
redwood tree (Tree 1398) from Tract C. cond large tree slated
for felling. See picture below.
THIS AREA INTENTIONALLY LEFT BALNK
Page 2
Redwood tree slated for removal in so-called Preservation Area
to make way for project landscaped entrance
Page 3
Removal of this stately redwood tree (and the large tree slightly to the left tree trunk
is small area flanking the
project entrance is UNCONSCIONABLE!
Notes underneath the Label for Tract C on Site Plan L 6.0 indicate
The Response Committee (and the entire neighborhood) fears that this type of willful disregard
unabated. Why cannot the
Applicant and his Consultant work with these beautiful trees to create their entrance?
Tract D is the largest of the 3 Tracts at 2,426 SF and the flattest at an estimated 23% slope.
However, it is 6-sided and at the very southwest corner of the project. Tract C has basically been
carved out of the front yard of the existing residence on Lot 20. See screenshot above taken
from Site Plan L 3.1.
Tract B, although about 2161 SF, is steep (approximate 27% slope) and skinny (approximately
20 ft. wide and 108 ft. long). The shape of this strip of land, which runs from a paved street
(Cupola Drive) uphill between Lots 29 and 30 to dead end at Lot 24 is not conducive to
the movement of wildlife.
The Application only designates this strip of land as open space because it is needed as an above-
ground drainage swale. The water collected in Tract B will collect toward the oblong piece of
Tract A (between Lots 13 and 14) that contains the underground storm water pipes that channel
water down to the eastern edge of the project near the Ribbon Trail.
Page 4
The Committee estimates that the average slope of these 3 small tracts of land approximates
28%. Tracts C and D are steep-sided and not easily accessible for young children, the elderly or
residents with physical challenges.
previously mentioned landscape notes on Site Plan L 6.0 stating
lawn and ornamental planting.
Of note is that the Staff Report brushes aside any discussion of Tract A as
area and open space.The Staff Report states: Tract A is located in the steepest area of the site
and (is) not easily accessible.(Emphasis added.)
steepness and inaccessibility are a common theme utilized by the Committee in many
discussions within its March 7, 2018 response document.
total 5,727 SF of Tracts B, C and D
However, the Committee also emphasizes that the (which
the Staff Report apparently has determined is the total square footage of easily accessible open
constitutes less than 1% 3.63 acre size.
space within the project)
Finally, the Staff Report indicates that
existing access from the end of Capital Drive ensures the provision of convenient and safely
accessible (Emphasis added.)
The Committee reiterates its discussion (on Pages 86 through 88 of its March 7, 2018 Response
Document) of the lack of easy accessibility to Hendricks Park. In short, safe accessibility at the
Application proposes to
north end of Capital Drive will be jeopardized by the fact that the
complete the paving Capital Drive approximately 125 feet short of the northern end of
Capital Drive and the entrance to the park.
The existing gravel/dirt road will remain as is
with no improvements planned. Construction traffic to access Lots 1 and 2 will exacerbate the
condition of this dirt access road, especially during the rainy season. See additional discussion
on Page 86
See also picture below that indicates the current width and condition of this northern most
portion of Capital Drive as it approaches the entrance to Hendricks Park.
Page 5
nd
The park entrance is at approximately the location of the 2 white sign to the left of the trail.
To the right of the dirt trail are the western boundaries of proposed Lots 1 and 2. Note also the
steep drop off to the exiting house on the left. There is no improvement planned for this portion
of Capital Drive, continuing a dangerous situation for a park entrance that will only get worse if
construction traffic utilizes this portion of the road to access Lots 1 and 2.
The Response Committee also must comment on the paragraph contained on Page 27 of 62
(middle of page) of the 2/28/18 Staff Report that discusses EC 9.6815 (2) (f) and the requirement
for a barrier at the end of an improved street
See picture below taken from the point where Cupola Drive will meet Capital Drive looking
north on Capital Drive toward the entrance to Hendricks Park.
Page 6
The 8/22/17 Application indicates that the widening and paving of Capital Drive will end at a
point approximately midway between the two cars on the left of the road. From that point, it is
an additional 125 linear feet up this road to the entrance to Hendricks Park.
Per EC 9.6815 (2) ( c), a barricade must be placed across the road where the proposed improved
road ends and meets the unimproved dirt road. This is impossible.
There are two residences on the left side of the road past the point where the barricade is
planned. One is visible in the left hand side of the picture one page prior. The other is to the left
of the light blue car in the distance.
Once again, the Response Committee is faced with a serious design discrepancy that has not
been thoroughly addressed by either the Application or City Staff. Although the proposed PUD
will run along the entire right hand side of this dirt road all the way to the park, the Applicant is
proposing to pave Capital Drive only to the point midway between the 2 cars visible above.
d-2017, these types of confounding and
unanswered issues are unacceptable.
Page 7
See also screen shot below taken from Site Plan L 6.0 dated 1/19/18. Note the two driveways on
the upper edge of the frame, past the point at which the paved Capital Drive will end.
The Response Committee submits the above additional testimony in support of its conclusion in
EC
the March 7, 2018 Response document that the Application fails to meet the standards of
9.8320 (8)
. Therefore,
THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
At this point, the Response Committee wishes to amend a statement at the bottom of Page 85 of
The following paragraph should be deleted
its March 7, 2018 Response Document. :
Note that the Response Committee requested documentation from City Planning
reg
southern border. City Planning indicated that they would address this subject in their
Staff report; however, the Response Committee cannot locate anywhere in the Staff
Report that they have done so.
The Committee apologizes for overlooking the inclusion by City Staff of a discussion of this
issue on Page 15 of 62 of their Staff Report.
Page 8
BROWN Daren M
From:Kathleen Masterson <kcmasterson@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 8:22 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Please enter into the record and confirm receipt.
Schirmer Cross Sections PUD Site.pdf
Attachments:
March 20, 2018
To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
From: Kathleen Masterson, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee
Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1)
Dear Hearings Official:
This is additional testimony regarding the Criteria as listed below:
EC 9.8320 (2): The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plan policies.
Ridgeline Park Section:
Regarding ensuring preservation of those areas most visibly a part of the entire community, the staff report
focuses only on the undeveloped tracts of land on the eastern ridge of the property, stating that the view from
the Ribbon Trail will be preserved. No mention is made of the impact on the view of the ridgeline from Eugene,
which will impact a much larger portion of the population of the area. The Applicant's representative utilized
the three slides (submitted as attachments to this letter) during her presentation to the hearings official. Her own
visuals clearly show that the PUD site lies at the ridgeline, is currently heavily forested, and that the loss of the
trees above 901' would be visible from downtown Eugene and the Laurel Hill Valley. The presence of off-site
mature trees is unlikely to hide this loss.
Development Standards:
The South Hills Study acknowledged that in some areas the highest elevations have shallow slopes. Still, it
advised that the highest elevations of above 901' be preserved from intensive development due to the significant
visual impact for the citizens both in downtown Eugene and the Laurel Hill Valley. The staff report twists itself
into knots in order to accommodate this proposed PUD. Actually, the “preservation areas” are listed as such
because the slopes are so steep and prone to landslide that they are for all practical purposes unbuildable. The
“clustering” of potential building sites closer to the top of the ridgeline just represents putting as many home
sites as possible on the site. The recommendation of the South Hills Study that intensive development be
clustered in the lowest elevations in order to preserve open space in the highest elevations should not be
precluded.
Regarding the requirement that developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space elements, the
report states "Staff notes that the proposal also includes a preservation area along the northeast boundary of
the subject property which abuts the established public open space of Hendricks Park.” It is unclear from the
site plans where this preservation area lies, as the lots directly abut Hendricks Park on the north, and are not
separated by a preserved area. Are they speaking of Tract A?
1
Review in terms of bulk scale and height:
Lots along the east side of the PUD site include defined
conservation areas of varying size that limit the buildable area of the lot. The potential home sites are directly
uphill and likely to be seen from the Ribbon Trail. Without CCRs there is no way to determine how obtrusive
the buildings might be. The staff report states (p. 13):
"A third video was previously submitted that depicts a computer animation of the site at build out with
typical single family structures. This video is intended to depict the anticipated bulk, size and scale of
the project once homes have been constructed on the site."
EC 9.8320 (3)
This animated video should not replace defined CCRs. See below
EC 9.8320 (3)
The staff report states (p. 19) that:
“The applicant states in their narrative that private covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs)
will provide guidelines for the bulk, height and scale of the buildings and a design review team will
review and approve proposed building plans to ensure that the intent of the CC&Rs are met.”
According to LUBA No. 2012-039 Final Opinion & Order: "City cannot rely on non-binding expressions of
intent from an application to ensure that approved standards are met."
EC 9.8320 (4)
(b): Tree Preservation
The Staff Report (p. 21) borrows language directly from applicant that "trees are in various forms of condition
from good to poor. Many of the trees have not been actively maintained for decades." This is not expert
opinion, as there is no certified arborist on the development team, and should not be taken as such. Removal of
these trees would subject the trees along the north side of the PUD within Hendricks Park to increased wind-
throw damage.
(c): Restoration or Replacement
According to city planning staff, the PUD site lies within the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory per the
April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper. The level of tree removal allowed with this tentative PUD is not
consistent with the acknowledged level of protection for the features, namely the view from lower elevations.
EC 9.8320 (5): The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with the
following:
(b) Safe and adequate transportation systems for pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation.. as
well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops etc.
2
The staff report states (p. 31) "Nearby facilities include" and just lists how close commercial centers,
Laurelwood and the LTD stop at 19th and Agate are, saying they are accessible by bike. No attempt is made to
explain how bicycle transportation to these sites is safe, given the significant difference in elevation between
these“nearby facilities” and the PUD, along with the many blind curves that must be navigated.
The report includes as Attachment F a memorandum from Scott Gillespie PE, who concludes that Spring Blvd.
and Capital Drive are adequate to serve the proposed development. He states that there is "no evidence to
suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site." As someone who has
lived on Spring Boulevard near the intersection with Fairmount, adjacent to the first two blind curves on that
route, this statement is difficult to believe. I have witnessed numerous close calls over the years, as drivers
attempting to pass a bicyclist heading up the hill swerves into the opposite traffic lane at the blind curve. My
husband and I have rendered first aid to two bicyclists who narrowly missed more significant injury as cars sped
by.
EC 9.8320 (6)
Slope Failure:
See the Review of Branch Engineering's Geotechnical Investigation by Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D.
CEG. This review shows that the site is not geotechnically suitable for the proposed development, and will
adversely impact the proposed site, the Ribbon Trail and the Laurel Hill Valley.
Emergency Response:
While the Fire Marshal recommended “No Parking” signs on both sides of existing
roads leading to the PUD site would greatly improve the ability of the fire department and emergency
responders to respond quickly, this is not the only problem. As demonstrated by Response Committee and
acknowledged by City of Eugene Public Works, the access roads to the site have a paving width of 18'. A fire
truck has mirror to mirror width of 10 feet. The Response Committee demonstrated that two large vehicles are
unable to pass each other (Fire Truck backing down the hill in order to allow Sanipac truck to pass). It is
important to remember that this incident occurred on Spring Boulevard, where there is no parking on either side
of the street. Access to timely emergency response remains limited by narrow streets having numerous blind
EC 9.6815
curves, and a single access point. While the requirement for a secondary emergency access under
was waived due to the steep slopes involved, lack of a true secondary access is a significant risk to public health
and safety.
EC 9.8320 (7)
Provision of water and electric services: EWEB has indicated that there is sufficient water to supply the site but
that the infrastructure is inadequate, requiring a new water distribution system. As written in the code, this
criterion is met only by the Applicant demonstrating future availability in certain ways. This demonstration
must be present in the record, which according to the recommended condition of approval #9 must be in the
form of cash, bond payment or irrevocable letter of credit.
A roadway review presented by Scott Gillespie PE dated 12/8/17 (Staff Report Attachment F) discusses the
condition of the existing roads. He correctly states that the development site is primarily accessed via Spring
Blvd and Capital Drive. He also correctly states that Cresta de Ruta provides another route to Capital but is not
the most direct route. It is important to recognize that both of these routes must go through the 5-way
intersection; the Cresta de Ruta route is just more circuitous.
He then states that there are a number of connections to the primary route. The only reasonable routes are via
thth
Fairmount to Spring to Capital Drive. Three of the six listed connections (East 27 to Spring, East 27 to
thnd
Woodlawn via Central & 26, and Agate to Columbia via 22) require vehicles to travel on Woodlawn or a
3
section of Spring Blvd south of the 5-way intersection that is even narrower and more substandard than the
remaining options. He then goes on to state that "the roadways listed above make multiple street connections
into the area and the potential for routes to access the development site multiply exponentially as proximity to
the site increases." This statement makes no sense and could not be further from the truth.
As part of Mr. Gillespie's “Review and Recommendations” he states that the narrow roadway and topography
create a self-regulating condition consistent with a queuing street. He also states that “Spring Blvd and Capital
Drive do not have a crash history. This further justifies the adequacy to serve motorists pedestrians and
cyclists.”As shown in the Response by the Joint Committee, a crash with significant emergency and repair
response occurred in September 2017.
The two foot wide sidewalk described on the downhill side of Capital Dr. has no railing and a steep drop off in
places, putting pedestrians in the roadway, just like they are all the way down Spring Blvd to Fairmount.
Further, he states that “From an Engineering operations and safety perspective, there is no appreciable
difference between an 18 foot wide road and a 20 foot wide road.” On the contrary, there is an appreciable
difference when a fire truck is unable to pass a Sanipac truck or other large construction vehicle due to the
narrow road width. This could increase emergency response time, putting existing residents and the residents of
the proposed PUD at risk.
EC 9.8320 (10)
EC 9.6505 (4) Sidewalks
Regarding the requirement for a 5-foot sidewalk instead of the proposed 4-foot width along Capital Drive
within the PUD, the staff report states:
"The 5-foot wide curbside sidewalk will allow for pedestrians and people with mobility impairments to
safely travel on a publicly dedicated surface in both directions between locations in the Capital Hill
neighborhood and to more distant attractors such as schools, stores, and parks...will provide the public
with a viable alternative to walking in the street and being forced to compete with larger and faster
bicycles, cars and trucks."
This sidewalk is only within the PUD, and ends at Tract D. It essentially allows pedestrians safe passage in a
circle along Capital Drive and the private road. After Tract D and along the proposed access to lots 18 and 19,
pedestrians and people with mobility impairments are forced into the street.
_____________________________________________________________________________
In summary, after spending long hours studying the Tentative PUD application and attempting to learn as much
as possible about the relevant sections of the Eugene Code, it was disappointing to read the staff report. I held
out hope that the planning department might look at this development with a more critical eye, but in far too
many sections the Application's assertions were accepted without question and used nearly verbatim to explain
why the PUD application should be approved.
4
Kathleen Masterson
2290 Spring Blvd.
Eugene Oregon 97403
5
BROWN Daren M
From:Jason B Brown <brownj11@uoregon.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:21 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Capital Hill PUD post-hearing testimony
Capitol Hill PUD Added Testimony Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1) .pdf
Attachments:
DearNick,PleaseaddthefollowingtestimonyfortheCapitalHillPUDtotheposthearingrecord.Thanks.Jason
JasonBrown
AssociateProfessorofCreativeWriting
UniversityofOregon
(917)7675386
1
Date: March 20, 2018
To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
From: Jason Brown, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee
Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1)
Dear Hearings Official:
This is additional testimony with regard to the PUD process and the Eugene Planning
DepartmentÈs Staff Report on the Capital Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-
1).
9.4300, 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development;
Specifically, I wish to address
9.8305 Applicability9.8320 Approval Criteria
, and
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(9)(11)(12)(13)(15)(16), and 9.8325 Approval Criteria
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(11)(12)(13).
9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development
The Eugene Planning Staff report on the Capital Hill PUD (and in comments during the
hearing) repeated that the Applicant has done an excellent job in developing a planned
unit development on land in an R-1 zone. In their report they state that the Applicant has
developed a plan that meets the conditions of the code Åto the extent possibleÆ on page
10, 15, 17, 18 Åas much as possibleÆ on page 16, Åpreserve as many trees as possibleÆ on
page 21. The Staff Report uses the phrase Åas closely as practicalÆ page 14 and 56, and
Åto the greatest extent practicalÆ on page 15. In reference to the success of the
ApplicantÈs application, The Staff Report also uses the phrase Åthis development proposal
attempts to balance the private interestÆ with the public interest on page 15. Staff writes:
Åthe applicant has attempted to cluster the developable areas¼Æ; Åthe applicant has
attempted to work with constraints and opportunities of the propertiesÆ (page 16); Åthe
applicant has attempted to minimize impacts to the site¼Æ (page 21).
Throughout their report, the Eugene Planning Staff suggests that the Applicant has
attempted to come as close as possible to meet the public interest represented in the
relevant codes while seeking their right to develop in R-1 zoning. In fact, the Applicant
has no clear right to develop R-1 zoning because they are subject to refinement plans
EC 9.8320
(South Hills Studies and Laurel Hill--), which require the Applicant to
develop a Planned Unit Development. We want to pause for a moment and look at
EC9.4300 Purpose of /PD Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone,
which states that
Development overlay zone is intended to achieve all of the following:
(1) Provide flexibility in architectural design, placement and clustering of
buildings, use of open space and outdoor living areas, and provision of facilities
for the circulation of automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles, and mass transit,
parking, storage, and other considerations related to site design.
(2) Promote an attractive, safe, efficient, and stable environment that
incorporates a compatible variety and mix of uses and dwelling types.
(3) Provide for economy of shared services and facilities.
(4) Encourage the construction of a variety of housing types at price ranges
necessary to meet the needs of all income groups in the city.
(5) Enhance the opportunity to achieve higher densities.
(6) Preserve natural resource areas.
As I argue below (and in another post-hearing commentary and with others in the Joint
Response Committee document), the Applicant has proposed a crude land division for
very expensive homes, all at the cost of community safety, the environmental and
resource value of the contiguous park system, and the natural feature of the Åevergreen
forest edgeÆ of the ridgeline identified in the South Hills Study as a public asset of the
entire community. The Applicant has failed to fulfill the purpose of the planned unit
development required for a refinement zone.
The enactment of Oregon SB100 in the Eugene Code system requires developers wishing
to build in refinement zones such as the South Hills and Laurel Hill to submit planned
unit proposals because the refinement zones posses unique natural features (such as
ridgelinesÄthe Åevergreen forest edgeÆ described in the South Hills Study) that are
protected as public assets. The key point here is that the planned unit develop path allows
(quote from ) Å
a high degree of flexibility in the design of the site and the mix of
land uses, potential environmental impacts¼.Æ In other words, regardless of the
challenges of the site, the Applicant has a wide range of design choices at their disposal
in order to balance the desire to build homes with the needs of the community and the
natural environment as defined in the codes. When those needs are in conflict, as defined
9.9630 (3)(g),
in PlanningStaff is supposed to decide in favor of the public: In areas of
significant conflict (e.g., locating development in a highly visible area as opposed to a
less visible area or in an area of significant vegetation as opposed to a relatively open
area) which could be resolved through use of an alternative development plan, primacy
shall be given to the public interest in any determinations. Given that the Applicant has
failed to satisfy most of the Planned Unit Development criteria, and given the wide array
of design choices available to them, the Staff should have found that the public interest
was not satisfied by the Proposed Capital Hill PUD. To note a few design possibilities the
Applicant could have used to better protect the natural features of the site: the Applicant
could have concentrated townhomes in a smaller area on top of Capital Hill and thereby
protected larger stands of trees on the ridgeline. The Applicant could have developed
larger lots for expensive homes on the top of the hill, and thereby protected more trees on
ridgeline and reduced the traffic to the top of the hill. As we have argued elsewhere, only
one evergreen of significant size is preserved above 901 feet. There are, of course, many
other design possibilities the Applicant could have considered but has chosen not to.
Whether or not they ÅattemptedÆ to satisfy the criteria in the code is irrelevant in light of
the fact that they could have done so and chose not to. Though we acknowledge that all
design choices require sacrifices, and no design is 100% ideal, we contend that the
Applicant has failed to satisfy a large number of the design criteria for approval of a
PUD. The Applicant has also failed to satisfy the most important criteria to the public
interestÄthe natural resource of the ridgeline and the park system (views under threat,
trees threatened by windthrow, trails threatened by storm run off and landslide), and the
safety of residents on the roads and with regard to landslide.
9.8300 (1) Create a sustainable environment that includes: (d) Preservation of existing
natural resources and the opportunity to enhance habitat areas. (e) Clustering of
residential dwellings to achieve energy and resource conservation while also achieving
the planned density for the site.
As the Joint Response Committee Report Document argues, the Applicant has failed to
protect large trees on the ridgeline above 901 feet. As the foresterÈs report attached to the
Joint Response Committee document states, large trees are the most important vegetation
for the health of the forest on the site and to prevent windthrow in the contiguous parks.
The Applicant has designed a Tree Preservation Plan that allows for the cutting of 75% of
the largest trees 36 inches in diameter and over (see chart below).
Trees 14 inches in Trees 15-20 inches Trees 21 inches in Of the 21 and over
diameter and under in diameter diameter and over trees, very large
trees 36 inches in
diameter and over
Current total: 454 Current total: 115 Current total: 298 Current total: 77
Remove: 55 Remove: 21 Remove: 54 Remove: 14
Discretionary: 164 Discretionary: 45 Discretionary: 127 Discretionary: 37
Conservation: 235 Conservation: 49 Conservation: 117 Conservation: 36
(tech felling -10) (tech felling -7) (tech felling -23) (tech felling -7)
50% of trees can be 63% of trees can be 69% of trees can be 75% of trees can be
removed (or 229 removed (or 73 removed (or 204 removed
trees) trees) trees)
As I argued above, the Applicant could have concentrated townhomes in a small area on
on top of the hill (or made other design choices) to ÅclusterÆ development and therefor
9.8305
protect the natural features of the site. The Applicant chose not to meet the code.
demonstrates that the land on the site, which falls within the South Hill Study area, and
largely lies above 901 feet.
9.8320
I argue elsewhere (in the Joint Response Committee document and post-hearing added
testimony) that the Applicant has failed to meet the criteria of the South Hills and Laurel
9.8320 (2 9.8320 (3)
Hill plans ). I have also argued as part ofthat the lots on the eastern
side of the site allow for building as high as 47 feet (not the 30 feet asserted by Staff).
This does not adequately restrict building height in order to protect the adjacent Ribbon
Trail hiking area. I want to point out in more detail how the Applicant fails to meet
9.8320 (4) (a) (1) the Protection of Natural Features: significant on-site vegetation,
prominent topographic features, such as ridgeline¼. In (2) (a)
this section of the code
(1) Avoid unnecessary disruption or
goes on to state that the development should
removal of attractive natural features and vegetation.
As the foresterÈs report states
(and as the Response Committee argues in the Criteria 4 section of their Response
document), The Applicant has chosen to clearcut the ridgeline.
9.8320 (4) (a) (2) (b) the buildings,
Under code states that the Applicant must design
road, and other uses to preserve trees having the following characteristics:
(1) Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base zone
or special area zone designation and other applicable approval criteria;
(2) Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual isolated
trees subject to windthrow;
(3) Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from
glare, or shade expansive areas of pavement;
(4)Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses;
(5)Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback
areas;
(6)Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors;
(7)Trees with significant habitat value;
(8)Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets;
(9)Trees located along a water feature;
(10)Heritage trees.
As we have argued in the Criteria 4 section of the Joint Response Committee document
and in post-hearing submitted testimony, the Applicant has failed to satisfy 1,4,5,6,7 and
8 of the above criteria. Of the 401 trees that the Applicant proposes to preserve in the
Tree Preservation Plan, 58% are not healthy by the ApplicantÈs own assessment. The
Applicant has established no buffer or setback between private lots and Hendricks Park
on the northen boundary of the Proposed PUD. There is no buffer at the edges of lots.
There is only one large evergreen preserved on the ridgeline. The rest of the ridgeline will
be, according to the foresterÈs report attached to the Joint Response Committee
document, subject to a clearcut. As stated above, most of the large trees (75%), which are
of the highest habitat value, can be removed. For the reasons stated in the paragraph
9.8320 (4) (a) (2) (b)),
above, the Applicant fails to meet the standards in Goal 5 zone (
which the Eugene Planning Staff contend applies to the proposed site.
As the Joint Response Committee has argued in their Joint Response Committee
document, there are significant safety issues associated with the Proposed Capital Hill
9.8320 (5).
PUD that should recommend against the plan satisfying As I have argued
above, the PUD process gives the Applicant significant design options to meet the
criteria. In this case, the Applicant could have proposed fewer units, which would simply
have reduced the traffic flow along the narrow roads.
9.8320 (6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health
Inthe code states that,
and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood
hazard, or an impediment to emergency response.
The geologistÈs report attached to the Joint Response Committee document outlines in
extensive detail how the Proposed Capital Hill PUD poses a significant risk on the
eastern slope of the site to the Ribbon Trail and the citizens of Laurel Hill Valley who
live below the eastern side of the site. There is significant risk of landslide and erosion.
The geologist does a more than adequate job of presenting the evidence. The point to be
made here is that the Applicant has failed to mitigate or avoid these risks in their design.
The have chosen to string buildable lots across almost the entire eastern slope. The
Applicant has chosen to allow building in areas where LIDAR maps show scarps. The
geologist also demonstrates how storm water run-off poses threats to the Ribbon Trail
and that the ApplicantÈs estimate of the amount of water that will flow over the trail are
inaccurate. Again, the point here is that the Applicant has considerable design latitude
under the PUD process to avoid these problems but has chosen not to take advantage of
9.8320 (9) (12) (15) (16).
alternatives. The same arguments apply to
Given that the Applicant has proposed the need for a ÅhybridÆ pathway that combines the
needed housing path with the general path, we feel the need to point out that the
9.8325
Applicant fails to meet the criteria set out in the needed housing section of for the
9.8325 (12) (a)
same reasons we have pointed out above and elsewhere. In the code states
No development shall occur on land above an elevation of 900 feet except that one
that
dwelling may be built on any lot in existence as of August 1, 2001.
Much of the
Proposed Capital Hill PUD is proposed for the ridgeline above 901 feet.
In summary: the Eugene Planning Staff erroneously recommends that the Proposed
Capital Hill PUD should receive approval with only minor changes despite the fact that
the Applicant has failed to meet the codes listed aboveÄmost of the criteria for satisfying
approval of a PUD in the Eugene code. The Staff suggests the Application should receive
approval because it has attempted to meet the code or come as close as possible to doing
so. This is a fallacious statement, as we have demonstrated by proposing two simple
alternatives (clustered townhouses or large lots for large houses), which would more
likely produce a plan that would meet the important criteria and satisfy the needs and
concerns of the community with regard to safety and the environment.
BROWN Daren M
From:Janne Underriner <janneu13@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:13 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:john curtis
CHPUD letter to enter into the record
Subject:
Attachments:PUDletter2_3_15_18.pdf
Dear Mr. Gioello,
Please enter the attached letter into the CHPUD record.
Thank you,
John Curtis
1
BROWN Daren M
From:MCCULLOUGH Wallace <Wallace.McCullough@EWEB.ORG>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 4:52 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:KLOOS Bill (SMTP)
Capital Hill PUD, PDT 17-1; Owner Commitment to Fund Water Infrastructure
Subject:
Attachments:Capital Hill Owner Commitment re Water Infrastructure 3.6.2018.pdf
Nick,
EWEBhasreviewedtheattachedOwnerCommitmenttoFundWaterInfrastructureandfinditacceptable.
Pleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestionsorrequireanyfurtherinformation.
Thanks
WallyMcCullough
WaterEngineeringSupervisor|EugeneWater&ElectricBoard
4200RooseveltBlvd|Eugene,OR97402|Work/Fax:5416857435
1
BROWN Daren M
From:Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:12 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R; Eugene Planning Commission
Cc:Cathy Johnson
Bree Nicollo/Tiffany Edwards Testimony
Subject:
Attachments:Public Comments submitted after hearings official hearing (as of 3-19-18)Edwards.pdf;
Pub Com sub-Nicolleo, Edwards, Quick-Warner 030718.pdf
Dear Nick,
I saw the request from Tiffany Edwards, Director of Business Advocacy, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce to our
Hearings Official, Virginia Gustafson-Lucker
in the “Public Comments Submitted after the Hearings Official Hearing (as of 3-19-18)," dated March 14, 2018.
I hope that you and Ms Gustafson-Lucker do not honor this request. I believe that this would be a disservice to the public.
Many of us saw the email thread that she “inadvertently” submitted on March 7, 2018 and thought her actions highly
inappropriate.
We have been aware for some time that Ms Nicolello is a paid employee of Schirmer/Satre Group and is also the youngest
member of the
Eugene Planning Commission. We have heard that this is not the first time that she has participated in planning decisions
where she should be recusing herself.
Obviously, Ms Nicolello and her employer, Ms Schirmer, do not feel that her involvement in both can be a conflict of
interest, but believe me, many others do.
Please enter this email and the two attachments into the record and confirm receipt.
Thank you very much,
Catherine johnson
1
BROWN Daren M
From:Cathy Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:01 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Cc:Cathy Johnson
Meeting with Gioello and Favreau 090117
Subject:
Attachments available until Apr 19, 2018
Hi Nick,
The meeting notes and recording attached below were supposed to have been sent to you last fall and submitted
into the record.
I could have missed seeing them on the planning site, but I don’t believe that they are included.
Could you please enter both into the record and confirm receipt ?
Thanks very much,
Cathy Johnson
PS The audio recording was supposed to have been put onto a CD for submission, but this should work.
Click to Download
Meeting with Gioello and Favreau 090117 .docx
66 KB
Click to Download
Audio Recording of 090117 w:Gioello+Favreau.wav.mp3
115.2 MB
1
Notes from Sept. 1, 2017 Meeting at Eugene City Planning Department
Between CHPUD Response Team Members
& Nick Gioello, Associate Planner, and Eric Favreau, Civil Engineer I
Capital Hill PUD Response Team members present: Faris Cassell, C.W. Murchison, Susan Hoffman,
Nate Teich, and Cathy Johnson. Also attending: Paul Conte and (by speaker phone) Massoud
Saberian – Traffic Engineer for CHPUD Response Team.
(Note: Minutes and seconds in parentheses indicate time that topic was discussed in recording. Blue
text indicates follow-up items.)
Massoud asked about the status of the Fire Department’s review of the project.
Nick responded that on 8/31/17, he sent a request for final comments (“referral comments”) to
various city departments such as Public Works Department, Fire Department, Parks Department,
LTD, the 4J School District and others. He will get information back from them in 3 weeks or so –
approximately 9/21/17.
Response Team to request of Nick that he immediately provide a copy of each response (“referral
comments”) as he receives same.
The meeting then went on to address the questions in Faris’ 8/31/17 email to Nick.
1.What is the road rating of Capital Drive, Spring Blvd and Fairmount Ave? Are theroads
rated at 25 tons? 35, 50 or 80 tons?
(6:03) Eric- We don’t use road ratings. The rehabilitation of roads is constructed to have a 20-year
life and new roads are constructed to have a 30-year life as per AASHTO Pavement Design Guide.
Paul - Are all of the roads under consideration under city maintenance?
Eric - Yes.
Nick - All are public roads.
Paul - That’s not the same thing. Saying that roads are public doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re
under city maintenance. City has to take certain steps, I believe it’s called “acceptance.”
Eric - All of the roads are under city jurisdiction. Maintenance is a vague term; all are classified as
“local streets.” They don’t receive much in terms of rehabilitationconsideration for road
improvements. Of course there are exceptions, but it would be a high cost for a small number of
users benefits.
Paul - I know you have capital improvement and budget priorities, but I want to clarify, there is a
legal distinction whether a road is under city maintenance or not.
Eric - That would be a question for our Maintenance Department.
Nick - We’ll get back to you.
2. Has the city calculated the number of truckloads needed to remove the trees being cut down?
Eric - It’s not required. The city doesn’t do that type of analysis; there are no local regulations to
govern that. The city views construction (traffic) activity as a “temporary condition” and, as such,
doesn’t make those types of calculations.
3. Has the city calculated the size, weight, and length of the trucks, trailers, bulldozers, and
cranes needed to cut the trees in the PUD area?
Eric: No. See response to #2 above.
4.(8:51) Who is going to pay to bring Capital Drive up to the 21-foot minimum standard? (It
was clarified that this question only pertains to the widening of the Capital Drive in front of
the development.)
Eric -The developer must pay for this improvement.
Paul - Is city staff going to recommend, as a condition of approval, that the applicant does this work
prior to building permits? Or simply file bonds?
Eric - That will all be taken care of during the PEPI Process (Privately Engineered Public
Improvement Permit Process), our construction process. It will go through plan review in my
department and I’ll be the one reviewing the plans. The work will be bonded so that there is surety
that it is done.
Paul - Will city staff recommend that, as a condition of any possible Hearings Official approval, the
PEPI Process be adhered to as it relates to the widening of Capital Drive?
Nick - Yes. Any street widening work will be done in accordance “with” the PEPI Process.
(11:16) Paul - Is it staff’s position that you would actually specifically say that the conditions
referred to are in accordance with the PEPI process?
Nick - I’ll have to go and look; we have done that in the past.
Paul - It’s critical that it gets into the conditions of approval.
5.(12:31) Has the City taken into account garbage trucks during the cutting down of trees?
Currently a fire truck and garbage truck cannot both be on the same road without one being
backed down the hill?
Eric - No. This is not a requirement in the application process nor is it standard practice.
(Sanitation) requires very few trips per month, so there is little impact.
Faris - You should be aware that we have photos of a fire truck having to back a significant distance
down Spring Blvd. because of a garbage truck. (13:09)
Nate - So this is a Fire Department issue?
Eric - It’s something they will consider.
Paul - Could you make sure consideration of that is put into their (the Fire Department’s) referral
comments?
Nick - We don’t ask them to put anything in their report – they send comments to us.
Faris - So we should talk to the Fire Department?
Nick - Yes. Ask them to look at certain things. I think they’re well aware of the issues up there; we’ve
had a lot of discussions with them about it and we still are.
6.(13:52) Has the city calculated the impact to local roads of trucks, trailers, bulldozers and
backhoes to access the project and to cut in the new proposed PUD roads and install the water,
sewage, and drains?
Eric - No. (See answer to #2 above.)
Nick - Just to be clear, we have a set of clear criteria and that’s exactly what we follow when we
analyze this. When an issue is not in the criteria, we can’t use it as a way to evaluate this project
(14:52). It’s not that we’re trying to get out of what you’re talking about. Sometimes it seems like
your considerations are very valid, but if it’s not in the code, we can’t use it.
Paul - (15:11) Faris, can I jump the queue, because this point that Nick just made is part of the
point about clarifying two of the criteria interms of their scope. Re: EC9.8320 (6)where it
addresses that a proposed PUD “cannot be a significant risk to public health & safety…or an
impediment to emergency response.” How far down the access road(s) is the City and the Fire
Department going to evaluate that criteria?
Eric - Just along frontage of the proposed PUD property. That’s why we have adopted local street
standards and the Fire Department has acknowledged that that is acceptable. It’s not creating any
new issues.
Paul - Are you aware that the city has a formal decision that says you DO have to consider beyond
the site boundaries?
Eric - Yes, but then you get into the realm of what is creating, what is contributing towards…
Paul - (17:00) NO, the Planning Commission said it’s not about creating. It’s about whether or not
a lane provides safe and unimpeded access for emergency response. It doesn’t have anything to do
with whether you create an issue. It’s that, even if some issue exists, the Planning Commission ruled
that a Fire Apparatus Access Road is from the fire station to the site. It doesn’t stop at the boundary
and it doesn’t need “creation.”
Nick - We’re well aware of the case, it’s part of the internal discussion in how we deal with it in this
project. There are some differences and a lot of similarities. We’re still evaluating. We’re waiting
for the Fire Department to see what kind of language they’re going to come back with in referral
comments. Then we will determine how we’re going to assess that section in the code.
Paul - You have to assess it according to what the Planning Commission has said.
7. Has the city measured the length of the long driveway off Capital Drive where city deemed
no turn around required?
8.Will a pumper truck be required to travel to the top of the PUD area? What are the length,
weight, height of pumper trucks, ambulances and fire trucks?
9.Since there will be apartments (two stories), will a hook and ladder truck be able to negotiate
Spring Blvd? Capital Drive?
10.Has the city timed response from the fire station to the center of the PUD? Has the fire
department tried to have a fire truck go up to the PUD area at the same time an ambulance is
going down the hill?
Questions 7 through 10 above.
Nick: The Response Team should address these types of issues with the Eugene Fire Department.
11.Is the City proposing building a road through Hendricks Park? Or on the backside of the
PUD to Floral Hill Drive in the Laurel Hill Valley?
(18:50) Eric - No. We’re not considering this.
Nick - The city is not considering a road through Hendricks Park. A question in my letter (email)
caused confusion. I wanted to see if the parks people have looked at and thought about putting some
kind of access up there for maintenance. If so, is there the ability for emergency (only) fire access?
Parks said they are not considering any new access roads. Terrain is too steep. Nick verified with
site visit. Nick apologized if it seemed like the city was trying to get a road through HP. Nick needed
the applicant to discuss the road feasibility in their application and explain why it can’t be done
(because the approval criteria talks about looking at those types of “connectivity issues”).
12.Will there be school bus service to the PUD area? How many trips for South Eugene High
School? Roosevelt Middle School? Edison Elementary?
Nick - I will ensure that the Planning Dept. has included 4J (schools) in their request for final referral
comments.
13.(20.33) Will there be city bus service to the PUD area? How many trips a day?
th
Nate: The closest city bus service is at 19 and Agate. This distance is approx.1.2 miles from the
project and the way to and from is somewhat steep.
Nick - That’s a long walk.
Faris - Yes, especially in the winter and for those who are handicapped.
Nate - That’s part of the issue when the developer claims that it is convenient.
14.Is the City going to eliminate parking on one side of the road along Spring Blvd or Capital
Drive?
(21:22) Eric - No. I imagine that residents would like to have the convenience of street parking. So
there’s the “bonus” of having the parking there and the “bonus” of having the parked cars act as a
traffic calming measure. People are going to go slower when cars are parked on Capital. But also,
will they go slow because it’s too congested? As of now there are no plans to remove street parking.
Even if it happens in the future, it wouldn’t be a part of this (approval) process.
Paul - Some of the material claims that a road at 20 ft. meets city standards for two-way traffic and
a road at 21 ft. meets city standards for two-way traffic with parking on one side at most, so how do
you square continuing to allow parking with meeting the standard? The standards don’t allow
parking.
(22:57) Eric - At the time the road was constructed, it met city standards. If we were to go in today
and construct a new road we wouldn’t build it the way that it was built, but it was acceptable at the
time. Our local street standards became effective in 1999 or 2000 and there were lots and lots of
roads in the city that were built before that that would be obsolete in that regard, but they still
function.
(23:33) Paul - That’s true, but how do you meet the criteria in sub (6) and sub (5)(b) that requires
safe bicycle and pedestrian access? How do you square that with not having a road that meets
current standards when that’s a requirement for the PUD to be allowed? So you have a changed
condition and I don’t believe that there’s any law that says that because the street was in place, the
PUD can be allowed with an unsafe access. I think that’s contradictory. It’s been determined that
that’s not true. Your explanation would be fine if people were talking about conditions on Capital
Drive, but they’re not. They’re talking about conditions that need to be met in order to have safe
access to the PUD. If you’ve got some law, I think you should cite it.
(24:32) Massoud - At the time the road was built, the standards were not required and there were no
developments coming up with 50 or so units. (Actual maximum number of units is 37.) When you
say parking allowed on one side to accommodate (the neighborhood) or as traffic calming for a
street with a 12 to 14 foot width, I don’t think they mean that you need any additional traffic calming.
It just functions poorly. Even if you have two cars going toward each other, one still has to pull to
one side to allow the other to go by, assuming they can find a spot to do so. It’s a contradictory
statement, as was pointed out. At the time of approval (of the street standards) there were no
developments at the top of the hill.
15.(25:34) Who is responsible for damage to the road network by the heavy trucks?
Eric - In general, the City. For specific damage relating to construction of the PUD – the contractor.
It’s somewhat difficult to prove; you have to catch them in the act of damaging something to prove
that they did it.
Faris - But if it’s multiple construction vehicles, heavy logging trucks…
Eric - Yes, that’s something that we consider in our pavement design. As you know, Capital Drive
was repaved last year. We looked at the existing structure before we repaved it and then we did our
reconstruction of it. Something that is considered is existing zoning and land uses along that
corridor, so it’s designed to handle construction activity. Obviously it’s not designed for an
excavator to tip over or some freak accident.
Faris - So you reconstructed the roadbed so it can handle logging trucks?
Eric - Yes.
Massoud - Would there be a survey (assessment) of the road conditions before and after the PUD
construction?
Eric - No, that’s not something that we require.
Faris- could we request it?
Eric - I’m not familiar with anything in our code that could require that.
Massoud - I’ve worked in Washington County and other places where, when there is a major
development coming and Public Works anticipates a lot of heavy truck traffic going back and forth
for a year or so, they do an assessment of the road condition. There are multiple categories they can
look at, and then when the work is done, they can look and say that the road condition went from this
level to this level.
(28:44) Nick - Yes, the code actually does have provisions that require that there not be significant
negative impacts offsite. Could be insub (12), I think, (We think he means sub 11) so it’s not a public
works thing. This would fall under that (i.e., EC 9.8320 (11)) and the Hearings Official does have
a legal basis to do what Massoud has suggested. Whether or not he’ll choose to do it is a different
matter.
Eric – As a side note, I don’t think that we’re anticipating a lot of extremely heavy trucks for this
project compared to other construction sites. The access to the site doesn’t dictate that. Usually
you have a truck and pumper or a truck and transfer to bring up your asphalt and everything, which
are extremely heavy and also require a lot of street to maneuver through. I imagine that if this
project gets constructed, it’s not going to be with the biggest construction vehicles.
Massoud - I’m talking about a typical concrete truck going back and forth.
Eric - Yes, concrete trucks, but also asphalt trucks that weigh many tons.
(29:51) Nick - I think it’s a valid concern and it’s something that you should just throw out there.
It’s something that could be a condition (of approval). We did that where I used to work in Arizona.
I don’t know if we can do that here, but I’ll bring it up and I’ll discuss doing an assessment of the
roads leading up to it (the PUD).
Paul - Look at sub (12).
Nick - Prior to having them do the assessment…
Faris - Having who do the assessment? The developer?
Nick - Yeah. Or Public Works. We’ll have to talk internally as to whether or not that’s something
that could be done, but you could bring it up as a condition (of approval). Put it in there. I don’t see
why not, I think there’s something valid behind it.
Nate - It’s a brand new road. If you want to know what the condition is right now, anybody can tell
you, it’s been repaved within 11 months.
Nick - If it’s found that any of their activity caused some kind of degradation, then they’re responsible
to bring it back to prior condition. Ask for that condition. We’ll deal with it from the planning side
and it’ll be up to the Hearing Official.
Nick - I think what I’m hearing is that they (Public Works) don’t normally do that.
Faris - Is that the only way that you think we’ll be able to prove use? We need to know a way to
prove degradation of a road and so a condition survey is one way. Do you have any other way?
Eric - No, because degradation of a road happens all of the time, so it is hard to prove. Every vehicle
that drives on a road degrades it.
CW - Take the difference between the road 1 year ago and now.
Faris - It sounds a little bit argumentative to suggest that a road is always degrading as opposed to
degrading from a lot of heavy construction.
Paul - I can tell you where it is in the code.
(32:59) Massoud - With regards to the numbers, a pavement or civil engineer can come up with a
level of impact. You know how many trips up there you have now, and then based on the weight of
the trucks and typical construction traffic that may be going on for so long a period of time. That’s
why they do a survey before and after and that gives them a pretty good idea of conditions. If your
road has a 20-year life and it lasts 18 years, you know that it’s time for resurfacing. If it’s a brand
new road, newly paved and you have to come back and repave in 2 to 5 years, then you know that
there was an impact due to construction traffic. It’s fair (to ask) that the developer know this.
(33:51) Nick - It’s knowable.
Paul - You said that you don’t use a load standard; you use a construction standard that says “this
is how you build the road.” That’s the standard that you refer to, so does that standard ensure that
you meet Eugene Fire Code load standards for fire access roads?
Eric - We have Local Street Standards adopted by the City Council that acknowledges that our street
section standard is 6” of asphalt and 12” of crushed rock. They’re welcome to submit a design
report that says otherwise.
Paul - You would know from professional reference material, if it’s a 20-year life, the particular
design profile and standard, right?
Eric - Right
Paul - If you build to that standard, you’re building a 20-year road.
Eric - If it’s brand new, it’s 30 year.
Paul - But you know that because there’s some reference that tells you that.
Eric - Yes.
Paul - So there’s also some reference that tells you what load it will bear to get that 30-year surface.
Nick - Yes, and some calculation …
Paul - So what is that load, because Eugene Fire Code, which amended International Fire Code,
requires 80,000 pounds, to be able to support …
Eric - I don’t have that number.
Paul - Could you get it?
Eric - Possibly, but…
Paul - Why are you arguing about providing information that gets to the point that’s in the code that
assures safe emergency access?
Eric - I’m not arguing.
Paul - Can you get the number?
Eric - I can certainly look for it.
Paul - Thank you. That would be good.
(35:50) CW - I have a slightly related question. If the road does get severely damaged… In EC 9.6815
section 2(f) about a connection to an unimproved road. If the surfaces of streets connecting to the
project become fully degraded, the developer constructs a temporary barrier that says “Do not use
this road.” If the road itself gets extremely damaged, could the developer shut off access for people
that live at the end of the road, like Jason?
Eric - If it got to the point that the road was totally blown up to where it was not passable…
Nick - I think that’s one of the things that you should bring up…the concern for anybody living on
the section of Capital Drive that goes towards Hendricks Park. They must always have access during
construction, because that’s their only way in and out.You/We might want to make sure that we’ve
got something that covers that. I think that’s a valid point, too. Maybe we can put something in
ahead of time.
16.When will we be notified of the hearing date?
th
Nick - The Hearing is tentatively set for October 18. That is when a Hearing Official is available.
(NOTE: AS OF 9/12/17, THIS DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO NOVEMBER 1, 2017 AND
IS STILL “TENTATIVE.”)
Paul - Can you make sure that notices of the meeting get to the intended recipients & are not returned
for incorrect address?
Nick- Agrees that he will verify that meeting notices will go to the correct recipients at the correct
addresses.
17. Is the city studying or planning ways to ameliorate access roads (Capital, Spring from 27th
to 21st, including 21st and Columbia and Cresta De Ruta) weight limit or structural problems
caused by the additional new residents and construction traffic of the proposed CHPUD?
This is pretty much the same question as #15 (already discussed). Deterioration of the road due to
construction activity.
18.(39:03) Is the City studying or planning to improve the access roads listed in #17 toaddress
traffic safety (vehicles, pedestrians, school children, bikes)?
Eric - No.
Faris - Are you studying these roads – the roads that get you away from the neighborhood - are you
planning to include anything about that in your review of traffic, road safety, emergency access?
Eric – No. There are no plans in the TSP (Transportation Service Plan) and CIP (Capital
Improvement Plan) to address traffic safety in these areas.
Faris - So you don’t think it is the Planning Department’s responsibility to make sure that we have
safe and adequate access?
Eric - I can’t speak for the Planning Department.
Nick- He’s with Public Works.
Massoud - Traffic Engineers are pretty particular about the safety of streets and not compromising
or worsening conditions and (they) will chime in at some point.
Faris - So this question goes back to Nick and the Planning Department. Is the City or the Planning
Department making an assessment that all access roads provide safe and adequate access to the
PUD?
Nick - We’ll rely on our engineering “folks” to tell us whether it is safe or not.
Faris - The access roads…
Eric - No. There are no plans in the TSP/CIP. These are adopted plans that we (use) to identify
areas of the city that need improvement from a publically funded source
(41:24) Paul - That doesn’t speak to the point. That doesn’t cover whether or not you approve a
PUD, because those plans didn’t know about the PUD. You’re reversing the situation. The question
is not “Does the city have in place plans to improve that road (i.e., any access road).” The question
is “Is that road (i.e., any access road) safe and adequate for the proposed PUD? If that road is not
safe and adequate, it’s your responsibility to identify that and then the PUD wouldn’t be approved
because it wouldn’t meet (the requirements) in paragraph sub (5).
Eric - Right and then… I wasn’t done yet because our TSP/CIP actually do look at zonings and
vacant lands along the corridor and do consider maximum density when they’re evaluating the
access roads.
Faris - The access roads?
Eric - Yes. We look at all of the corridors.
Paul - Regarding sub (5)(b), which is bicycle, pedestrian & alternative mobility access offsite, what’s
the distance/where’s the limit to what you’re going to study?
Eric - I can’t speak to that right now.
Paul - Can you follow up?
Faris - That’s a real key question for us.
CW - These roads are major thoroughfares for U of O students, bicyclists, pedestrians, running
clubs...
Faris - And school children would be generated by this project and would need safe access all the
way to their schools.
Nick - So you’re talking about a dedicated bike/pedestrian path?
Paul - No. I’m just talking about sub(5) sub(b) that says you must have safe and adequate access.
(43:15) Paul - Can you give us a professional opinion about whether “mixed traffic” increases risk
or not? That is…pedestrians and vehicles sharing the same “travel way” – not the same right of
way – does that increase risk?
Eric - for?
Paul - pedestrians.
Eric - If they’re walking on the street?
Paul - Yes. If they have to walk on the street as their only way to get from Point A to Point B.
Paul - Not just the street but also the “travel way” – in other words – the same pavement that vehicles
have to use.
CW- Because there’s no sidewalk?
Paul - The question is very simple – You have a “travel-way” which vehicles have to use and
pedestrians have to use. Does that increase the risk for those pedestrians vs. the pedestrians being
able to move outside of the “travel way”?
(44:45) Eric- I understand what you’re saying but…and I think Massoud would be able to address
this since he is a traffic engineer…
Paul - Can we get a city response on that? Because that’s essential to sub (5) sub (b).
I can tell you what the answer is. If you go look at the literature, you’ll find that it increases the risk
and in fact the Public Works staff and the City Engineer have provided testimony to counsel that
that’s the case. So I’ll be sure they have that testimony to submit. The point is that when you’re
looking at sub (b), you need to address the fact that mixed traffic as I’ve described increases the risk
to pedestrians.
(45:17) Massoud - As part of my presentation, I refer to the Traffic & Safety Study by Branch
Engineering, which was submitted by the Applicant. At the bottom of page 2 it says, “additionally
there are areas where street parking creates a narrower than is typical condition that should be
reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer.” That’s one part…
Massoud continues - While I’m on the topic, the beginning of the report cites City Code EC9.8650
indicating, “this development does not have significant impact” with which I disagree. Significant
by whom? That’s something the City Traffic Engineer and the Engineering Group will address such
as a percent impact to the existing neighborhood. As part of that code language, there are two
segments that both increase traffic as well as the cross sectional element of the street. So those are
all in the city code that has to be addressed at some point. But it is under this discussion and I’ll be
making a reference to those when I generate a response to the Traffic Safety Analysis. Again, (the
Applicants says) they’ve chosen to do it (submit a traffic safety analysis) and are not required to do
it…I disagree with that. It should be a requirement for any development of this size.
Eric - so I think we’ve essentially covered the next few questions (referring to 19 & 20.)
19. If improvements to the access roads listed in #17 are necessary to accommodate increased
traffic caused by CHPUD by the City or in the hearing process, who will pay for those
improvements?
20. Has the City calculated load limits for access roads listed in #17? Can you provide those
limits to the response group?
21.(47:25) Does the Planning Dept. believe that the South Hills Study applies to either one or
both FNA (Fairmount Neighbors Association) and LHVCA (Laurel Hill Valley Citizens
Association) sections of CHPUD?
Nick - references his 6/26/17 letter to Carol Schirmer (that’s on-line) including some maps
showing the location of the South Hills Study, the Fairmount Neighbors Area and the Laurel Hill
Valley Citizens Area.
Nick - Yes…South Hills Study applies to a portion of this (property) and that came up in their
(Applicant’s) argument that they couldn’t do “Needed Housing” although that’s what they wanted
to do. We’re taking this project as if it’s under the General Criteria because that’s how they
checked the box and that’s how they wrote their narrative. We’re not considering the needed
housing argument, but that might be a separate argument that comes up in appeal, if there is one.
Faris - So the South Hills Study only applies to a portion?
Nick - Yes. About half of it.
Faris- A significant portion.
Nick - Yes.
22. (49:10)Could you explain the City's thinking about (proposed) lot 33, which has three
rented dwelling units under 1 roof in a remodeled former garage? (The existing 3-unit apt.
building and an adjacent single-family house are currently on one tax lot. All 4 units are
rentals. The Application proposes to split the existing tax lot into two tax lots…Lot 20 with the
house and Lot 33 with the 3 unit apt. building.) Both proposedlots are within the Fairmount
Neighborhood, zoned R-1. Is there a requirement that an owner must reside on the property?
Faris - There is an existing 3-unit apartment building (within the project boundaries) as our question
indicates.
Nick - Is that one in Fairmount?
Faris - Yes. It is in Fairmount according to their plan.
Nick - We’d have to research it and figure out, was it established legally and does it qualify?
Faris - It (the 3 unit apt. building) was built when the adjacent house was owner-occupied. Since
the Dreyer’s purchased that property (in approx. 2013), both the house and the 3-unit apt. building
have become rentals, with no owner living in either property The Fairmount Neighbors do not allow
rentals unless the owner also lives on the property.
Nick - We’d have to research it. I don’t know how it was established; how it was qualified. If
something is illegal, this is the time to bring it into conformance. It’s a good question. So you think
the issue is – when it was established, the owner had to live on the property?
Faris - Yes.
Faris - Massoud…do you have any additional questions?
(52:32) Massoud – In the Applicant’s Traffic Safety Analysis, they (Branch Engineering) have
pointed out why narrow streets are good and beneficial. But they have not said anything about the
dis-advantages of them…those should be brought up too. They are not using the correct trip
generation standard for traffic count. I don’t know of any jurisdiction that would accept a situation
like this. What they call a “traffic safety analysis” is lacking in many, many places. That’s because
it wasn’t done by a Traffic Engineer.
Faris - That affects 9.8670 (Traffic Impact Analysis Review – Applicability)
Massoud: At some point, I’d like to hear the comments and feedback of the City’s Traffic Engineer.
Three Additional Questions:
54:30) Regarding EC 9.8320 Criteria #11 – off-site impacts. On page 61 of 67 in the written
(
Application, Applicant does not seem to directly address any specifics beyond the internal area
of the PUD itself. Applicant asserts: “This criterion has consistently been interpreted and is
here interpreted to address offsite impacts of the proposed use.”
Nate - In EC
9.8320, # 11, Offsite Impacts - When it says no minimal off-site impacts, what is the distance beyond
the boundary of the PUD that is considered off-site? The access to get to this (property) begins
necessarily at the Fairmount/Spring intersection.
Nick - You’re talking from a traffic standpoint?
Nate - I’m talking about traffic and everything else. There’s only one way out (for large- scale trucks
and fire trucks). The only way up is at the Fairmount and Spring intersection at 2100. Is that
considered off-site? Is it relevant?
(55:40) Nick - There’s relevance. We’ll address that when we get to the Staff Report. I don’t know
what the answer is at this stage. I think what we’re hearing today (from Public Works) is that there
won’t be any changes to the road(s) going in.
Nate - Is it evident that this is considered under the impact?
Paul - Yes. Legally, if there’s an impact. For example, if a noise beyond acceptable levels reached
out a mile, that would be illegal under sub(11).
Faris –That would also apply to traffic?
Paul - Under that provision There are other provisions that have different limits for the impact.
Nate - How far down do you go? So this is an arguable point?
Nick - Yes.
Faris - But in this situation, how far out do we need to consider access as an important part of the
criteria? Do we consider access all the way down the hill (out of the immediate neighborhood)…for
th
instance, down to 19 and Agate?
Paul - Separate answers. Nick has been very helpful with sub(5) and sub(6) and other traffic related
things – they are one situation. Minimum negative off-site impacts are different criteria. That
doesn’t have a limit. If you can show there would be significant off-site impacts two miles out, that’s
another issue. But if its traffic access, that’s a different question.
On page 62 (of the written Application), Applicant only addresses “peak hour” trips of
proposed residences and considers them negligible. Is this a problem?
Eric - That’s what we consider. “Peak hour” trips; only the worst-case scenario.
What does “off-site impacts” entail? Particularly in relation to EC 9.8320 Criterion 11 –
“traffic” (page 61 of the written Application) and Criterion 6 “safety” and “impediment to
emergency response” (page 46 of the written Application). Does the Planning Department
consider road network that provides access/egress to/from PUD site and limitations/constraints
of this route?
(58:04) Nick - Yes we do. As a caveat to this, it’s going to be very important what the Fire
Department’s referral comments say. I’m not going to “sugar-coat” it. If they come back
and say “it’s totally hazardous; we can’t get up there; putting in this PUD is going to make
it worse; we can’t provide service” or something like that…(I don’t think they’ll end up
then we’re going to have
saying that…but if they end up saying something close to that…)
to look at this very hard and decide. Do we recommend approval or do we recommend
denial? We’re not at that stage yet.
Typically you do these smaller projects and you know
going in…yes, everything is lining up; this is going to be an approval. I’m not saying that
this thing is still unknown
in this case; .
Paul - it’s worth pointing out that the burden of proof is on the Applicant; it is not on the
opponent (to the development).
Nick - Right. The (City’s) assessment involves looking at what they (the Applicant)
provided and looking at the referral comments that come in.
Meeting ended approximately at 10:10 AM.
Meeting minutes submitted by Cathy Johnson & Susan Hoffman, CHPUD Response Team.
BROWN Daren M
From:Jason B Brown <brownj11@uoregon.edu>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 7:08 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Added testimony for the Record: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1)
Additional Testimony.pdf
Attachments:
DearNick,PleaseaddtheattachedtestimonytotherecordfortheCapitalHillPUD.
Thanks,JasonBrown(JointResponseCommitteeMember)
JasonBrown
AssociateProfessorofCreativeWriting
UniversityofOregon
(917)7675386
1
Date: March 20, 2018
To: City of Eugene Hearings Official, c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
From: Jason Brown, Member, CHPUD Joint Neighborhood Response Committee
Re: Capitol Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1)
Dear Hearings Official:
This is additional testimony regarding the Eugene Planning DepartmentÈs Staff Report on
the Capital Hill PUD Tentative Plan Application (PDT 17-1).
EC 9.8320(2) The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plan
policies.
The Development Standards section of the South Hill Study refinement plan states:
That planned unit development procedures shall be utilized for the following purposes:
1.To encourage clustering of development in areas characterized by: a. Shallowest
slopesb. Lowest elevationsc. Least amount of vegetationd. Least amount of
visual impact.
2.To encourage preservation as open space those areas characterized by: a.
Intermediate and steep slopesb. Higher elevationsc. Significant amounts of
vegetation; d. Significant visual impact.
The Staff Report assembled by the Eugene Planning department argues:
As reflected on the applicantÈs site plans and in other supporting application materials,
the steepest slopes and higher percentage of vegetation occur on the eastern side of the
PUD site. The Tract A preservation area runs the entire length of the eastern border. All
of the lots that border Tract A (Lots 5, and 8 through 19) also contain varying sized
preservation areas. These combined preservation areas will locate potential building
sites on these lots closer to the top of the ridgeline that this site is located on. This will in
effect provide clustering of home sites where less trees and vegetation are located.
Although contrary to the above purposes of clustering development areas in the lowest
elevations and preserving open space in the highest elevations, the physical
characteristics of the site, with the steepest slopes and higher percentage of vegetation in
the lowest elevations, preclude these purposes. The greatest degree of previous site
disturbance has occurred in the higher elevations of the site. This includes the previous
construction of three homes, a multi-unit building, a barn and grading of a dirt vehicle
trail where the proposed private road (Cupola Drive) would be located. It also appears
that a number of trees were removed over the preceding years since the number of
mature trees at the highest elevations of the site are significantly fewer than in the lower
elevations with minimal ground disturbance. Clustering of home sites in the mid to higher
elevations will limit the ground disturbance and allow for the preservation of more trees
and vegetation, which is consistent with the above policies to the extent possible, given
the existing site conditions and constraints.
There are significant flaws in the reasoning of the staff report, which accepts wholesale
the arguments made by the applicant. While the applicant does not propose building on
some of the steepest parts of the eastern slope, they do not, in fact, ÅclusterÆ the proposed
lots to the Åextent possible.Æ I want to pause for a moment to point out a pervasive
problem with the staff report, which makes repeated reference to the applicant having
done all they can do, and the best job possible, given the limitations of the site, which
exists in R-1 zoning. The Proposed Capital Hill PUD exists in the South Hills Study and
Laurel Hill Valley special overlay zones, which means the applicant must go through the
PUD process and not perform a simple land division under R-1 zoning. The reason for
this is simple: the codes recognize the south hills, especially ridgelines above 901 feet, as
areas in need of unique protection. ThatÈs why we have the PUD approval process, which
imposes certain constraints, but also provides special latitude, in order to insure
environmental and community needs are protected. In short, the applicant is not
constrained by the R-1 zoning rules in forming a proposed PUD. The applicant could
have proposed, for instance, clusters of townhomes on top of the hill, thereby condensing
housing in order to save a significant number of trees on the ridgeline. The applicant
could have proposed several large lots for expensive homes and deed restricted the
maintenance of the large trees on those lots. Many of the trees to the south of the
ApplicantÈs large house were cut down in previous years, but north of his house (between
his house going north to the boundary of HendricksÈs Park), there are many healthy very
large trees that define the ridgeline. Almost all of those trees will be cut down. During the
hearing and throughout the staff report, the Eugene Planning staff both defends the
ApplicantÈs right to build under R-1 while also defending the proposed Capital Hill PUD
configuration as being the best possible proposal given the restraints of the zoning and
the difficulties of the site. These are both fallacious assertions. The Applicant has no clear
rights to build under the base zone (R-1), nor is the applicant constrained by the base
zone in conceiving of an imaginative PUD that both meets the needs of the environment
and the rights of the community as defined by the refinement plans.
The applicant has simply chosen not to pursue other options and has proposed what
amounts to a land division with a narrow tract (Tract A) of land as a buffer, but this in no
way leads to the conclusion that the current proposal is the only practical solution, as the
Eugene Planning Staff suggests. The staff concludes that the physical ÅconstraintsÆ of the
site ÅprecludeÆ the applicantÈs obligation of fulfilling more than half of the design
standards as set forward by the South Hills StudyÄan illogical assertion. The Applicant
could instead have designed a PUD that met a significant number of the standards. PUD
applications are supposed to develop in 1) (b) Lowest elevations (c) Least amount of
vegetation and (d) Least amount of visual impact. They are supposed to avoid developing
at 2) (b) Higher elevationsc (c) Significant amounts of vegetation (d) Significant visual
impact.
The applicant has failed to meet 75% of the design standards set out by the South Hills
EC 9.8320(2)
Study. As discussed in the portion of the Joint Response Committee
document, the applicant proposes to develop on the ridgeline above 901È feet. Not only is
there a significant amount of vegetation above 901È, but almost allof the largest trees
existing along the ridgeline will be cut down for construction. As the ForesterÈs Report
included in the Joint Response Committee document states, the large trees help prevent
windthrow in the adjacent park, in the surrounding neighborhood and in the rest of the
proposed Capital Hill PUD. eliminating large trees on the ridgeline will likely lead to the
loss of more trees, including those trees in the proposed Capital Hill PUD preservation
areas. The applicant has also manifestly failed to mitigate Åsignificant visual impact,Æ
which we have demonstrated in our documentation (and shown below). Our rendering
below is a representation of what the ridgeline would look like if the trees that can be cut
(removal trees, discretionary trees, and technical felling trees) are cut down.
The rendering provided by the applicant at the hearing (below) represents a significant
deception because the trees outside the tree preservation area are not protected by any
provision in the proposed Capital Hill PUD. Because of the number of the lots proposed,
the breadth of the Critical Root Zone for the large trees pictured in the rendering below,
there is no way of developing the proposed lots without destroying the trees pictured
below. As Forester James Merwin stated in his ForesterÈs report (attached to the Joint
Response Committee Document), the proposed Capital Hill PUD will create, in effect, a
clear cut on the ridge line that could be seen by the entire city of Eugene to the west and
the citizens of Laurel Hill Valley to the east.
That adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any development by a
qualified engineering geologist occur under any of the following conditions:
Eugene Planning Staff argues the following:
The applicant has provided a geotechnical/geologic investigation (dated February 6,
2017) and subsequent addendum (dated May 30, 2017), which included field
observations, subsurface explorations, and data analyses confirming the site contains
Eugene Formation sandstone and siltstone formation with soil depths exceeding 40
inches and slopes exceeding 30 percent, consistent with conditions #1 and #5 listed
above, requiring both on-site and off-site review of impact.
Offsite review of impact included a Geotechnical EngineerÈs inspection of the
surrounding area to map geological surface features. Offsite landslide forms were
mapped in the existing residential areas. According to the engineer of record, ÅThe
primary area proposed for development in the Capital Hill PUD is the only area on this
hill that is outside of mapped landslide hazard areas.Æ Onsite review included the
aforementioned subsurface explorations conducted by Branch Engineering with ten (10)
exploratory test pits and surface reconnaissance of the site. This on-site review
determined the majority of the development site is underlain by stable volcanic rock
material.
The off-site and on-site proposed improvements include shallow widening of Capital
Drive fronting the site, mostly occurring in up-hill cut conditions, and relatively shallow
utility construction in existing paved roadways. Other improvements include construction
of a private road along a former cleared and graded vehicle access way, and grading
associated with stormwater facilities. The mass movement of earth materials is not
expected and there is a relatively low risk of off-site impacts due to the proposed
development.
The geotechnical/geologic investigation found no significant geologic hazards that would
impede or restrict the construction on the site. The investigation does acknowledge that
shallow slide debris in the top 2.5 feet of ground material can be expected in the steeper
lots. The map included with the May 30, 2017 Geotechnical Addendum identifies the
steepest areas along the eastern portion of the site as ÅHigh à Landsliding Likely,Æ
affecting Lot 5, Lots 8 through 20, and Lot 33. The geotechnical/geologic investigation
also found that the site is geologically and geotechnically suitable for the proposed
development, provided that specific recommendations described in the investigation are
incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Additional discussion of the
geotechnical issues and Eugene Code requirements are found at EC 9.8320(6) and EC
9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis, later in this report. A condition of
approval is recommended at EC 9.8320(6) to ensure the recommendations of the
applicantÈs geotechnical/geologic investigation are carried out during future
development of the site.
Based on the available information and findings above, and with the condition of
approval as recommended at EC 9.8320(6) of this report, staff concludes that the PUD is
consistent with the applicable policy language.
Hearing testimony by Geologist Gunnar Schleider (his findings are attached as an
appendix to the Joint Response Committee report) demonstrates the inadequacy of the
applicantÈs geotech report and the false conclusions the city provides based on misleading
and inaccurate analysis. In brief: the applicantÈs geotech experts (Branch Engineering)
avoided making test pits where they would have found problems. They avoided testing
areas where houses are proposed on the east side of the slope, they ignored or failed to
analyze LIDAR data that shows landslide scarps in the middle of the proposed PUD, they
proposed preserving a stretch of land between lots 17 and 18 because of landslide danger
when the more significant landslide danger exists to the north on the slope.
That developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space elements of
different developments in order to preserve the maximum amount of continuous open
space.
The Eugene Planning Staff argues:
The common area and individual conservation areas of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19 will
effectively act as one large continuous open space. These areas are also relatively steep
and heavily vegetated. This area is also identified on the Geotechnical Investigation
addendum (dated May 30, 2017) as any development in this area would require
significant grading and loss of vegetation. By preserving this area the applicant has
demonstrated a commitment to protecting the visual impacts for users of the Ribbon
Trail. Staff notes that the proposal also includes a preservation area along the northeast
boundary of the subject property which abuts the established public open space of
Hendricks Park, consistent with the policy language above.
The Joint Response Committee wishes to point out several flaws with the above
statement. To begin with, there is no Åpreservation areaÆ on the northeast boundary where
the proposed PUD abuts Hendricks Park. On the ridgeline and extending down to Tract
A, Lots 1, 4, 5 directly abut Hendricks Park, which means the large trees on those private
lots can be cut down and will have to be cut down during the construction of homes. This
information is apparent from looking at the site plans. The large trees of the park have
grown in a group. According to the Forestry report attached the Joint Response
Committee document, large trees grow and strengthen to withstand windthrow in groups.
So if half of the trees in a particular group are removed, the rest are exposed to
windthrow danger. This is what would happen if the trees along 1,4,5 were removed, as
they surely would be to construct new homes. Because stands of trees do not recognize
property lines, the large trees in the part adjacent to the northern boundary of the
proposed Capital Hill PUD would be exposed to windthrow danger.
While it is true that the applicant has provided some open space in Tract A, it is also true
(as we argue elsewhere) that this thin strip of land will not shield the 47-foot tall houses
from people hiking on the Ribbon Trail. The Eugene planning staff repeatedly states that
R-1 zoning allows for 30-foot houses, and they use this height as an example for how the
visual effects will be mitigated by the code. They are, however, wrong about the code.
On slopes (of the kind that exist on the east side of the proposed Capital Hill PUD),
houses are allowed to be 40-feet plus in height. Mike McKerrow, Land Use Analyst with
the City of Eugene, wrote to confirm this fact to the Joint Response Committee:
"A way to summarize the definition which attempts to provide some relief for steep
lots is, you always measure building height from the lowest point of the perimeter of
the building at a distance 5' from the wall. If the difference is 10' or greater from that
lowest point on the perimeter to the highest point you get 40' instead of 30'.
In addition, Mike McKerrow acknowledged that houses using 6/12 roof pitches built on
steep slopes can go an extra 7 feet in height for roof features, which takes the height of
buildings from the Eugene Planning StaffÈs 30 feet to a potential 47 feet. We feel this
difference invalidates the arguments used by the Eugene Planning staff to assert that the
construction above the Ribbon Trail will be hidden from view.
Of the two tracts connected to Tract A that run east and west, one serves as the storm
water run off area. Trees will have to be cut down in this area, and though small trees of
1.5 inches will be provided to replace those that are taken down, a permanent right of
way will have to exist to access and maintain the storm water system. Areas will have to
remain free of trees to maintain a right of way.
That developments be reviewed in terms of scale, bulk and height to ensure that
development blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of the south
hills area.
The Eugene Planning Staff argues the follow:
Lots on the top of the ridge are characterized by a mixture of flatter terrain and typical
slopes of 20% or less with relatively few trees. Five of the seven existing structures are
located in this area. Neighboring off-site mature trees and existing homes significantly
obscure the view of the top of the ridge from lower elevations to the west. The applicant
indicates the existing two- story carriage house on Lot 24 is not visible from lower
elevations to the west. The applicant also indicates that of the 34 proposed lots, only 8
lots have the potential to be viewed from beyond the property to the west, but it is highly
unlikely given the current condition of off-site mature trees. This will, in effect, limit the
potential visual impact of the proposed single-family residential development in the top of
the ridge area. The R-1 zoning requirements limit building heights to 30 feet, consistent
with existing single-family structures both on and off site and in the general vicinity.
Lots on the eastern side of the development are characterized by steeper slopes in excess
of 20% and up to 50%. A majority of the trees and other vegetation on the site are
located in this area. All of the lots in this area have defined conservation areas that
prohibit construction of buildings. Many of these lots have close to, if not more than, half
of their lot areas protected by conservation area. This effectively acts as a type of
building envelope, forcing building locations closer to the streets that provide access to
the lot, limiting grading impacts, creating a larger natural buffer to the adjacent Ribbon
Trail to the east, and preserving more of the existing vegetation. The individual lot
conservation areas, along with the previously described Tract A, provide a significant
buffer and visual screen from lower elevations to the east of the site. This will limit the
scale and bulk of the proposed single-family residential development as viewed from the
east.
The staff agrees with the applicant that existing vegetation from off site will obscure the
view of the proposed Capital Hill PUD. As evidence of their argument, they state that the
carriage house next to the applicantÈs home is not visible from the east or the west. It is
not visible from the east or the west because trees have not been removed on the
ridgeline. If the trees on the ridgeline were removed for construction of the proposed
Capital Hill PUD, the carriage house would be visible, just as the ApplicantÈs house is
visible from downtown and the university (see photo below taken from the University of
Oregon campus).
The applicantÈs house (inside the pink square) is visible because he illegally cut (and was
fined for cutting) the trees that screened his house from downtown. The visibility of his
house from downtown and the university is an obvious example of what will occur across
the ridgeline if the proposed Capital Hill PUD passes and the rest of the trees along the
ridgeline are removed to make way for construction. The staff report suggests that trees
from neighboring properties lower down on the hillside will screen houses on the
ridgeline. But this is not the case with the applicantÈs house at the moment; why would it
be true for the houses that will be built next to the applicantÈs house at the same
elevation? That argument makes no sense. Also, it does not make sense at this stage of
the approval process to use existing trees that are not protected on neighboring properties
to exempt the applicant from meeting the design standards for a planned unit
development in the South Hills Study refinement zone.
The staff goes on to praise the applicant for preserving a Åmajority of the vegetationÆ on
the eastern slope. This statement is a misleading oversimplification. As the foresterÈs
report (attached to the Joint Response Committee document) makes clear, not all trees are
of equal utility in a forestÄnot all trees have the same habitat value. Larger, more
established trees define the ridgeline, shield the view of the PUD, and protect the forest
from the intense winds that assault high elevation ridges like the one on Capital Hill. The
Proposed Capital Hill PUD proposes to remove 69% of trees 21 inches and over in
diameter and 75% of trees 36 inches and over in diameter (see the section on EC 9.8320 4
in the Joint Response Committee document). The issue here is not restricted to the
visibility of the houses in the proposed Capital Hill PUD, but also pertains to the Ånatural
characteristics of the south hills area.Æ By clear cutting the ridgeline and removing up to
75% of the large trees on the site, the proposed Capital Hill PUD would expose the
houses on the proposed site (as has already happened with the applicantÈs own house) and
completely reshape one of the most visible natural features in the city. Those trees not
immediately cut down in the process of construction will likely fall as a result of
windthrow (see the foresterÈs report attached to the Joint Response Committee
document).
The Eugene Planning Staff states that the preservation area (Tract A) will screen hikers
along the Ridgeline trail from seeing the houses in the development. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Contrary to what the staff states, houses built on steep slopes along
the eastern side of the development can be up to 47 feet in height. Because of the
narrowness of the lots and allowable size of the houses, some of these homes may be
only ten feet apart. The hiker on the ridgeline trail will look up to see a wall of three-story
ÅmansionsÆ towering over what had been a nature trail. Even though some of the trees in
the preservation area will actually be preserved, many of them will not be preserved for
various reasons. Trees may be destroyed for the construction of storm water and removed
for construction or die because their critical root zone has been compromised. Or they
may simply blow down because 75% of the large trees will be eliminated in the process
of construction. Owners of property with private preservation areas may build 200 sq.
foot out buildingsÄas many as they want to per lot. Those out buildings and the storm
water system will require access and maintenance, which will require the removal of
vegetation.
The Staff report praises the preservation area in Tract A that extends north to south and
east to west between lots 13 and 14. They also state that trees eliminated in the
preservation areas and in other areas will be replaced with trees of 1.5 inches in caliper or
five feet in height. The project's tree replacement plan is woefully insufficient. The
Application proposes to replace each felled tree (each "discretionary tree") with a new
one. However, the new trees will be so small (1 inch caliper for deciduous trees and 5
feet tall for coniferous trees) that they will not reach the height of the removed trees for
generations, if at all. The Applicant might have understood this if the Eugene Planning
Staff had not given a waiver for the code requirement that they have a certified arborist
consulted in the creation of the tree preservation plan. In terms of visual impact, forest
health (see the foresterÈs report attached to the Joint Response Committee document),
small trees serve as an inadequate replacement for larger trees in terms of screening,
visual impact, slope stability, and forest health. A small tree cannot withstand windthrow
or protect surrounding trees from windthrow. It is obvious that the proposed project will
not "integrate" into the surrounding neighborhood for 50 to 100 years. Furthermore,
Planning Staff conditions weaken tree protection. The application originally stated that
removal of trees in preservation areas "must be documented by a certified
and approval
arborist. Documentation must be provided to the City for review prior to
tree removal activity." The proposed change suggested by the Eugene Planning Staff has
no
deleted the "required approval" phrase. Therefore, removal of preservation trees
longer requires city approval....only city "review."
Knowingly or unknowingly, the
Eugene Planning StaffÈs recommendations have weakened tree preservation.
Also in the proposed changes to Note #8 on sheet L3.0, Eugene Planning Staff indicates
that "Any trees that must be replaced within private preservation areas are the
responsibility of that lot owner." The March 3, 2017 version of the Application called for
each lot owner to manage their individual lot preservation area; however, more recent
versions have the HOA shouldering the responsibility for this maintenance (Page 26 of
the 8/22/17 Application). This confusion emanates from the absence of draft CC&Rs and
so many revisions to the Application. If the City Planners can't get it straight, how is the
community expected to do so. The Eugene Planning Staff also states that the city will not
enforce CC&Rs, a statement that undercuts the seriousness and adequacy of the tree
preservation plan. In addition to adding that trees removed in Tract A for installation of
the storm water drainage system will need to be replaced at a rate of 2 new for everyone 1
removed, this proposed condition eliminates the previous time frame for replacement of
these trees in this portion of Tract A. The original applications stated that trees would be
replaced in the "fall of the year after completion of the work as accepted by city." Now
there is no time frame for replacement trees. This proposed new paragraph also uses the
final phrase "planted in the same general area." This language is too vague to provide
adequate preservation of trees. Once again, the Eugene Planning Staff has weakened the
tree preservation plan with their proposed changes.
The Joint Committee finds that there is inadequate and inappropriate protection of trees
and that the application relies on the promise of future CC&Rs to provide protection.
However, LUBA No. 2012-039 Final Opinion & Order Page 11 (sentence supported with
3 citations of prior rulings) states that the "City cannot rely on non-binding expressions of
intent from an application to ensure that approved standards are met."
That planned unit development review shall be based upon a recognition of both public
and private interest. In areas of significant conflict (e.g., locating development in a
highly visible area as opposed to a less visible area or in an area of significant
vegetation as opposed to a relatively open area) which could be resolved through the
use of an alternative development plan, primacy shall be given to the public interest in
any determinations.
This planned unit development proposal is required to meet the public policy direction
contained in the South Hills Study for development in areas having significant vegetation
and other sensitive characteristics such as steep slopes, wetlands, and open waterways.
The evaluation of this development proposal attempts to balance the private interest to
develop the property for low-density residential use along with the public interest for
minimizing the impact to the natural character of the site, in accordance with the South
Hills Study and other applicable PUD approval criteria.
In the context of the PUD review process, and understanding that the subject property is
zoned for low-density residential development, staff acknowledges that an appropriate
level of residential development can occur. Staff finds that the proposal provides for an
appropriate level of low-density residential development, while attempting to preserve
the natural features and qualities of the subject property as much as possible.
The applicant has attempted to cluster the developable areas of the lots in less vegetated
areas, through the use of common open space preservation area (Tract A) and individual
preservation areas on the eastern lots to provide for a larger overall preserved area on
the steepest slopes and most densely vegetated portion of the site. The applicant has
attempted to work with the constraints and opportunities of the property which have
dictated the development pattern of the proposal. This has been achieved by placing more
lots in the higher elevations where more site disturbance has occurred in the past, such
as the construction of existing structures and associated grading and the past removal of
trees and vegetation. Placing the new private road within the footprint of the existing
vehicular access way is another example of working with the existing property
constraints while limiting site disturbance. Locating almost all of the preservation area
in the steepest portion of the site where trees and vegetation are most dense also serves
the public interest by providing a larger buffer between the publically used Ribbon Trail
and the developed portion of the site while also ensuring a significant natural wildlife
corridor. Staff agrees that the public interests are met by this development plan, and
there are no significant conflicts with private interests, to the extent contemplated or
otherwise required by the above policy.
The Joint Response Committee finds the following statement by Eugene Planning Staff
an inadequate response to the conflict represented by the Proposed Capital Hill PUD:
Staff finds that the proposal provides for an appropriate level of low-density residential
development, while attempting to preserve the natural features and qualities of the
subject property as much as possible. As we argued above, the fundamental assumptions
of the Eugene Planning Staff are fallacious. Whether or not the applicant attempted to
develop an adequate plan is irrelevant. They have failed to meet the codes of the relevant
refinement plans. We have already demonstrated that they COULD have developed a
PUD that adequately met the standards and recommendations of the refinement plans.
R-1 zoning does not constrain them from conceiving of an imaginative plan that meets
the needs of the community and of the environment. That they have failed to do so is no
reason for the Eugene Planning Staff to state that they did Åas much as possible.Æ The
proposed Capital Hill PUD plans to cut down 75% of the large trees and clear cut the
Åevergreen forest edgeÆ ridgeline as defined in the South Hills Study as a public asset.
This plan represents an unnecessary assault on environment and on the public interest.
Laurel Hill Plan
The following findings address those policies (shown in italics) of the Laurel Hill Plan
found to be applicable to the proposed tentative PUD. To the extent that the findings
and analysis in the applicantÈs written statement are relevant, those findings are also
incorporated herein by this reference.
Land Use and Future Urban DesignPolicy 1: Approval of Valley Development will take
into consideration:
a.Density. The appropriate density for residential development shall be
determined based on 1) the provision of the Metropolitan Area General Plan
\[MetroPlan\] calling for an overall density range of one to ten units per acre;
and 2) provisions of the South Hills Study, including those limiting density to
five units per acre for sites above 500 feet in elevation.
b.Size. Large apartment complexes (over thirty-two units) are objectionable because
their dominance would alter entirely the character of the Valley. Approval of
apartment complexes larger than 32 units will depend upon the feasibility of
providing adequate urban services, streets, schools, and transportation.
c.Dispersal. Planned Unit Developments composed primarily of multiple family
dwelling units shall be separated and dispersed and not abutting.
The Eugene Planning Staff makes the following arguments:
The proposed lot layout provides for significant continuous preservation areas along the
eastern boundary, which contains a significant number of trees on the site. The proposed
lot layout places the houses along the eastern side of the site, closer to the middle of the
development. Mature trees in the proposed preservation areas and along the adjacent
Ribbon trail should obscure, if not completely screen, the view of the development from
the residential properties to the east, which are significantly lower in elevation. The
adjacent residential area to the west has steep topography, significantly sloping away
from the site. The site is currently mostly obscured from view and difficult to observe
from the flatter elevations below and to the west. As depicted in the applicantÈs written
narrative (revised August 22, 2017), the photograph on page 25 shows that the existing
3-story home on Lot 23 is barely visible at the top of the ridge.
Several properties along the highest portions of the site (Lots 4, 20, 23, 24, 33 and 34)
are currently developed with structures; it is anticipated that most of these would remain,
so it is unlikely that trees would be removed from these lots. The undeveloped lots
clustered around the highest elevation on the site have characteristically fewer trees than
the eastern portion of the site. The proposal is conditioned so that trees on individual lots
cannot be removed until a construction permit is issued. It is highly likely that these lots
will develop sporadically over time and any tree removal will also occur sporadically.
This ensures that the site is not stripped of all trees during initial infrastructure
construction associated with street and utilities construction. The PUD is also
conditioned so that any trees in the buildable areas of individual lots that are removed
for development, or die for any reason, will be replaced with new trees at a one to one
ratio. This ensures that the site will remain vegetated and provide adequate screening in
the future.
There are no proposed buildings or additions explicitly included with this PUD
application. Lots will be sold to individual builders and potential homeowners for future
development. The applicant states in their narrative that private covenants, conditions,
and restrictions (CC&Rs) will provide guidelines for the bulk, height, and scale of the
buildings and a design review team will review and approve proposed building plans to
ensure that the intent of the CC&Rs are met. That said, the City does not enforce private
covenants or agreement between private parties (see EC 9.1020). The applicant has not
provided any specifics as to what may be included in future CC&Rs, or similar
limitations that would be enforceable requirements for the development of individual
dwellings, other than the standards afforded through the PUD approval criteria and
related development standards of the R-1 zone.
As described previously with regard to policies of the South Hills Study, the individual lot
preservation areas along with Tract A provide a significant buffer and visual screen from
lower elevations to the east of the site The R-1 zoning requirements limit building heights
to 30 feet, lot coverage to 50%, and require typical setbacks from property lines
consistent with existing single-family development in the general vicinity. This will limit
the scale and bulk of the proposed single-family residential development and help it
blend with adjacent development.
In the section on the Laurel Hill refinement plan, the Eugene Planning Staff repeats the
same arguments that hikers on the Ribbon Trail will not be able to see the row of 47-foot
houses forty to a hundred feet up the hill above them. For anyone familiar with the
Ribbon Trail, this argument is simply impossible to believe. There will be a thin line of
trees between the trail and the row of houses, but there are no design standards or
additional height standards to mitigate the visual impact to one of EugeneÈs most popular
trails. The Eugene Planning Staff states that the applicant will create a review board to
create design standards for proposed buildings at a later date, but this in no way satisfies
their need to meet the above refinement code. The applicant promises to create design
standards, but as we stated earlier, the promise of future action does not satisfy the need
to meet the design criteria for PUD approval: LUBA No. 2012-039 Final Opinion &
Order Page 11 (sentence supported with 3 citations of prior rulings) states that the "City
cannot rely on non-binding expressions of intent from an application to ensure that
approved standards are met."
The Eugene Planning Staff goes on to reference the applicantÈs house, which they say can
barely be seen. In fact, as we have stated above, the applicantÈs house is now the most
visible feature on the ridgeline because he has chosen to engage in the kind of clear
cutting that the proposed Capital PUD plans for the rest of the hilltop.
The Eugene planning staff also argues that the five existing structures on the top of the
hill will remain, so there is no reason that more trees will be removed. This statement is
blatantly untrue. The building on lot 24 is a decrepit carriage house with no foundation
and is not a habitable structure. The barn on lot 5 is unusable and his sliding down the hill
because the slope is unstable (see photo below).
The other house on Lot 4 is also in very bad condition relative to the value of the lot and
is almost certain to be torn downÄa fact corroborated by the applicant himself in a
statement six months ago. The house has been abandoned for over a year and a half, was
leaking for six months, and has been subject to burglary at least twice. It is, in essence, an
abandoned building on a lot worth over a million dollars. The Eugene Planning staff go
on to argue that the PUD is unlikely to be built all at once and therefor poses less of a
threat to the needs and concerns of the community and the environment. This statement
makes no sense. Whether the proposed Capital Hill PUD is built over the course of one
year or five years, the same issues with regard to meeting the refinement plan design
standards exist. The timeline of the developmentÈs implementation has no affect on the
negative impact on the environment, safety and other community concerns as defined in
the code.
The Eugene planning staff again asserts that replacement trees will serve the function of
large removed trees in screening and forest healthÄa statement we have adequately
addressed above. They go on to argue that R-1 zoning standards will limit the size and
bulk of development because houses can only be 30 feet high and only take up 50% of
the lots. However, houses built on slopes can be 40 feet high, and the 50% includes the
preservation area, which means that very large houses will be built high on the lots on the
eastern slopes. There will be a 47-foot high wall extending above the Ribbon trail.
Because the 47-foot houses will sit on top of a steep slope, they will appear much taller
than they are.
EC 9.8320 (4)(b) Tree Preservation. The proposed project shall be designed and sited
to preserve significant trees to the greatest degree attainable or feasible, with trees
having the following characteristics given the highest priority for preservation:
d.Healthy trees that have a reasonable chance of survival considering the base zone or
special area zone designation and other applicable approval criteria;
e.Trees located within vegetated corridors and stands rather than individual isolated
trees subject to windthrow;
f.Trees that fulfill a screening function, provide relief from glare, or shade expansive
areas of pavement;
g.Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses;
h.Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback areas;
i.Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors;
j.Trees with significant habitat value;
k.Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets;
l.Trees located along a water feature;
m.Heritage trees.
The Eugene Planning Staff argues:
The applicant submitted a Tree Preservation Plan that indicates the location of all
existing trees on site. These trees are in various forms of condition from good to poor.
Many of the trees have not been actively maintained for decades. A number of trees have
been damaged by events such as ice storms and severe wind over the years. The applicant
has made an effort to preserve as many healthy trees as possible by concentrating the
tree preservation in one large area along the eastern border of the property. This is the
area of heaviest tree population and thereby preserves larger stands of trees in their
natural habitat and also limits further wind- throw damage that isolated trees are more
susceptible to. This approach also creates a larger vegetative corridor and provides a
significant visual buffer between the publically used Ribbon Trail and the proposed
private home sites. It is noted that the proposed single-family development is compatible
with surrounding developments which include other single-family development and a City
park, so there are no adjacent incompatible uses.
As demonstrated on page 25 of the applicantÈs narrative (revised August 22, 2017), the
highest elevation of the site is mostly obscured from views from lower elevations to the
west by off- site mature vegetation.
At this time, all of the trees shown on the lots in areas where construction may occur are
listed as ÅdiscretionaryÆ trees (meaning they could be removed). Since the lots will be
sold to individual owners who will decide where to locate a future home, it is unknown at
this time where construction may occur on any lot. In order to ensure that any trees lost
from future site development are replaced, the applicant has proposed a one to one
replacement for every tree that needs to be removed for development.
The applicant has provided a tree preservation plan which provides clarity and
assurance regarding the tree preservation requirements and allowed activities within
various areas on the subject property, such as common open space preservation areas,
and individual lot preservation areas. Staff finds that the provisions of this plan, in
combination with specific notes on the plans, will ensure compliance with the applicable
criteria regarding tree preservation. While no major revisions to the proposed lot
configurations, or other areas such as preservation areas, appear necessary to
adequately address the approval criteria, a number of specific concerns and details
regarding implementation of the tree preservation plan are further addressed below.
These include changes to the Tree Preservation Plan ÅNotesÆ on sheet L3.0, as
recommended conditions of approval, as follows: Replacement trees shall be a native
species, with a minimum caliper of 1 1Ì2 inches for deciduous trees and a minimum
height of 5 feet for coniferous trees. Any trees that must be replaced within private
preservation areas are the responsibility of that lot owner. Any trees that must be
replaced in Tracts A, B, C, and D will be the responsibility of the common owners or
homeowners association.
Any trees to be removed in Tract A, as a result of installation of the storm sewer system
between and near Lots 13 and 14, shall be replaced with two trees for every tree
removed, after the CityÈs acceptance of the system. Replacement trees shall be a native
species, with a minimum caliper of 1 1Ì2 inches for deciduous trees and a minimum
height of 5 feet for coniferous trees, and planted in the same general area.
The Eugene Planning staff references 9 criteria within this section of the code and claims
that the applicant has satisfied most of those criteria. We would argue that the applicant
has failed to meet all of the criteria (6 out of 9) that apply in this case. According to the
code, the applicant is supposed to preserve healthy trees. In fact, 58% of the trees the
applicant proposes to preserve are listed as in poor condition by their own standards. The
applicant is supposed to preserve trees in ÅstandsÆ that avoid windthrow. They have
preserved a long narrow stretch (Tract A), but this does not function as a stand of treesÄ
it is too narrow to withstand windthrow. Meanwhile, all the trees on the ridgeline and up
the slope will be subject to windthrow because the ridgeline trees will be removed. Trees
should be preserved as a buffer between incompatible uses. Tract A does serve as a small
buffer, no doubt, but there is no buffer on the northern side of the proposed Capital Hill
PUD where the lots abut Hendricks Park, EugeneÈs premier park. Trees should be
preserved along ridgelines. There is one conifer of significant size preserved along the
ridgeline above 901È feet. Trees of significant habitat value should be preserved.
According to James MerwinÈs Forestry report (attached to the Joint Response Committee
document), large trees are vitally important to the health of the forest for two important
reasons: they grow together to form collective strength against windthrow (a particular
threat on ridgelines) and the extensive root systems of large trees stabilize slopes against
landslide. As we have noted else where, 75% of the largest trees on the Proposed Capital
Hill PUD site may be removed as part of the construction process (this includes
discretionary trees, removal trees, and technical felling trees. See chart below.
Trees 14 inches in Trees 15-20 inches Trees 21 inches in Of the 21 and over
diameter and under in diameter diameter and over trees, very large
trees 36 inches in
diameter and over
Current total: 454 Current total: 115 Current total: 298 Current total: 77
Remove: 55 Remove: 21 Remove: 54 Remove: 14
Discretionary: 164 Discretionary: 45 Discretionary: 127 Discretionary: 37
Conservation: 235 Conservation: 49 Conservation: 117 Conservation: 36
(tech felling -10) (tech felling -7) (tech felling -23) (tech felling -7)
50% of trees can be 63% of trees can be 69% of trees can be 75% of trees can be
removed (or 229 removed (or 73 removed (or 204 removed
trees) trees) trees)
Lastly, trees adjacent to parks and streets should be preserved. The applicant has
preserved trees in the narrow corridor of Tract A (the single virtue of the Tree
Preservation plan). However, many of the trees in Tract A will be cut down to make way
for the storm water run off, and they will be replaced with trees of low habitat value
because they are too small. Those small trees will never live to grow because right of way
must be maintained for construction crews to maintain the storm water system. No
preservation is provided adjacent to the most important open space area in Eugene:
Hendricks Park.
In Summary: The Joint Response Committee argues that the Eugene Planning Staff has
erroneously recommended approval of the Proposed Capital Hill PUD. The main problem
with the Eugene Planning StaffÈs approach to the proposed development lies in their
repeated assertion that the Applicant has created the only possible or the best possible
proposal for the site and should therefor be excused from meeting most of the criteria of
the refinement plans. The Joint Response Committee finds this statement a weak
argument on behalf of a Application who has manifestly failed to meet most of the
standard and criteria of the South Hills Study and Laurel Hill refinement plans and the
Tree Preservation section of the PUD approval criteria. A proposal for a planned unit
development that would meet the needs of the community and the environment would be
possible, but it is not the job of the community to make such a proposal.