Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Appeal Statement to the Eugene Planning Commission of the Hearings Official Decision dated April 20, 2018, regarding the Capital Hill Tentative PUD application, File PDT 17-1. Submitted by the Joint Response Committee of the Fairmount Neighbors Association And the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens May 7, 2018 The Joint Committee is alarmed by the number and magnitude of errors in the Hearings Official's Decision to approve with conditions the Tentative PUD Application for the Capital Hill PUD (PTD 17-01). These errors include: inaccurate interpretations of Eugene Codes, uncritically accepting Applicant's flawed evidence and dismissing oppositional facts and arguments, obviously omitting and ignoring relevant facts and arguments, and insufficiently substantiating matters of judgment by selective use of evidence. The following appeal issues are listed in the order in which they appear in the Decision of the Hearings Official (April 20, 2018). All page numbers refer to that document unless otherwise indicated. The document is also referred to by the abbreviation DHO. Page numbers for the application for the Capital Hill PUD are indicated by the abbreviation CHPUD. Joint Committee response document page numbers are indicated by the abbreviation JC. As the remedy for the errors we identify in the DHO, we request that the Hearings Official's approval with conditions be reversed and that the PDT 1~7-1 be denied because it fails to satisfy one or more of the conditions for approval. Although some identified errors might be possible to remedy by imposing additional conditions, and we welcome such remedies, we contend that not all the errors we describe below can be resolved by more conditions. Therefore, we request that if you find that at least one criterion for approval is not met, the application should be denied. The Joint Committee members have worked for over a year to review the CHPUD application for compliance with Eugene Planning Codes and to prepare our detailed report. We have paid for professional expert consultants to evaluate technical issues: a geotechnical engineer, a traffic engineer, and a forester. The latter two, however, were not allowed access to the development site. We, not the Applicant, represent the true views of the neighborhood associations and essentially all 112 households residing adjacent to and along the one and only primary roadway - _ from Fairmount Boulevard to Spring Boulevard to Capital Drive. These narr w, wi N E are the only way in and out of the proposed CHPUD. Not one private individ al of ~I testimony at the Hearing in favor of the development. Assignments of Error, Criterion 1 MAY-72018 CITY OF EUGENE LANNING DIVISION Appeal Issue # 1: The Hearings Official erred regarding applicability of the Policies of the Metro Plan (DHO, p. 14) by denying that seven individual Policy statements should be considered as applicable in determining compliance with this Criterion 9.8320 (1). She incorrectly interpreted the requirements of this approval criterion and failed to evaluate evidence in the record that contradicts her findings.