Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTestimony Received 5-21-18 to 5-22-18 CAPITAL HILL PUD The Wrong Plan for a Problematic Site By Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG REVIEW ADDRESSES: EC 9.8320 (6) (TPUD Approval Criteria ÏGeneral) PUD will not be a risk to public health and safetyÈ EC 9.6710 (Geologic and Geotechnical Analysis) REVIEW INCLUDED: Branch Engineering: Geotechnical/Geologic Assessment Capital Hill PUD (2/6/17) Branch Engineering: Addendum to above (5/30/17) Open Record Submittals by Applicant DOGAMI Publications LiDAR Interpretation Field Observations CONTENT: IN THE INTEREST OF TIME: Review of Published Landslide Data • Interpretation of LiDAR Maps • Field Evidence for Active Landslides • Problems with the ApplicantÔs Work • Inadequate and Biased Assessment • Field Work Issues • Interpretation Issues • Other Issues • The Real Issue • The PUD makes it worse! • GEOMORPHIC EVIDENCE LiDAR Interpretation FIELD EVIDENCE Floral Hill Drive Directly Below the PUD Property PROBLEMS WITH APPLICANT’S WORK INADEQUATE AND BIASED COVERAGE Area Assessed: 2.7 Acres = 20% of PUD Area. Insufficient! THE PROPOSED PUD WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE! Fills will be added to the top of the steep slope. This increases driving forces. Water will be concentrated at the bottom of the steep slope. This decreases resisting forces. YOU MAY SAY IT’S ONLY 0.32 CFS But how much is that really? 1 cfs= 7.48 gallons. There are 60 seconds in a minute 0.32 x 7.48 x 60 = 144 gpm Equivalent to 29 garden hoses running full bore. Onto a 50% slope. 100Ô from Ribbon Trail Above a landslide mapped by DOGAMI! EC 9.6710: The field work conducted for the Geotechnical/Geologic Assessment of the Capital Hill PUD by Branch Engineering does not satisfy the requirements of EC 9.6710 (5)(b) or (4)(c), in that: 1.The subsurface exploration was conducted on 20% or less of the subdivision property. 2.The subsurface exploration did not extend into the areas most likely to be subject to slides. 3.The field work cannot be shown to have been conducted according to Standard Methods. The report on the assessment and its addendum contain numerous errors, all of which make it appear that the area is safer and more stable than it is in reality. 4.The addendum presents that the PUD will be constructed on “stable volcanic rock”, when, in reality, the site is underlain by an east-dipping sedimentary rock assemblage. 5.The scale of the “Area Slope Hazard Map” makes nearby DOGAMI-mapped slides appear twice as far from the PUD as they are in reality. 6.That same map indicates that lots 18 and 19 are located entirely within the “No Build Area”. The subdivision plans indicate otherwise. 7.Independent mapping of the area using state-of-the-art LiDAR hillshademaps and on-site tree evidence indicates that significant portions of the eastern part of the PUD have been and are subject to landslides. EC 9.8320 (6) The PUDÔs design also fails to satisfy the requirements of EC 9.8320 (6): 8. The design of the subdivision, with fills in the upper portion of the steep east-facing slope and concentration of storm-water in the pore-pressure sensitive lower portions of the site combine to both increase driving forces for slides at the top of the slope and decrease resisting forces at the bottom. In a system already subject to slope movements this will have a highly destabilizing effect. 9. The level spreaders proposed to be employed to discharge the storm-water from the eastern portion of the PUD are designed to dump 144 gallons per minute of water on a slope with a gradient of 50%. This is the equivalent of about 29 garden hoses running full bore and will result in mud and water running across the Ribbon Trail. From there, the water will run directly into a landslide mapped by DOGAMI and then continue to several residences along Floral Hill Drive. 10.The professionals who prepared the Geotechnical/Geologic Assessment appear to either not understand the local geologic system, or not to care, placing the interests of the developer ahead of the people along portions of Floral Hill Drive in the Laurel Hill Valley who will be the recipients of both the storm-water discharge and potentially resulting landslides of various forms. THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE RECOMMENDATION: TheTentativePUDapplicationfortheCapitalHillPUD mustbedeniedbecausetheGeotechnical AssessmentfailstosatisfyEC9.6710(4)(b)and(5)(b) andthePUD’sdesignfailstosatisfyEC9.8320(6). Sean T. Malone Attorney at Law 259 E. Fifth Ave., Tel. (303) 859-0403 Suite 200-C Fax (650) 471-7366 Eugene, OR 97401 seanmalone8@hotmail.com May 22, 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 Appeal to Planning Commission for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD Plan Application, PDT 17-001, Map 18030431 Please find attached letters submitted by this office on March 21, 2018, and May 15, 2017, for the above-referenced application and in support of the appeal on behalf of the Joint Fairmount Neighborhood Association and Laurel Hill Valley Citizens for the Capitol Hill Tentative PUD plan application. Sincerely, Sean T. Malone Attorney for Appellants Cc: Clients 1 GIOELLO Nick R From:Richard Grimaldi & Megan Clark <richmeg@efn.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 6:34 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Cc:ZELENKA Alan Subject: Capital Hill PUD Mr. Gioello: We are concerned about the Capital Hill DUP and how it encroaches upon the safety of our forest. We live on the other side of the hill from the proposed development. The loss of so many trees on the top would encourage the trees on our side to blow down in a windstorm and land on our house. There are additional concerns about the potential for landslides onto existing homes below the development. Additional crowding of the streets even with the proposed fire lane street do not adequately address the fire danger and other problems associated with increasing the density of the population on this hill. Please address these concerns by not approving the development. Sincerely, Megan Clark Richard Grimaldi 2210 Floral Hill Drive Eugene, OR 97403 1 GIOELLO Nick R From:pfisher <pfisher@continet.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:00 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Capital Hill PUD Testimony & Evidence to be included in and for HO May 22, 2018 Decision __________________________________________________________________________ Iamwritingregardingtheadditionofanewprivateroad,referredtoasCupuloDrive, intersectingCapitalDriveonaBlindCurve.MyconcernsarethatthisBlindCurveisnoordinary BlindCurveliketheotherblindcurvesonCapitalDrive. ΘȁΗΒΑΏȨΔȩ ThePUDprovidessafeandadequate transportation²¸²³¤¬²Ȃȁ Andoffersfurtherexplanationat9.8320(6)thatThePUDwillnotbeasignificantriskto publichealthandsafety,includingBUTNOTLIMITEDtosoilerosion,slopefailure,stormwateror floodhazard,oranimpedimenttoemergencyresponse. 4§¤ ££¨³¨®­®¥³§¤¯§± ²¨­¦"54./4,)-)4%$¨¬¯«¨¤²®³§¤±¢§ ««¤­¦¨­¦Ǿ ´­² ¥¤±® £¢®­£¨³¨®­² ±¤ ¯¯«¨¢ ¡«¤«¨ª¤³§¨²3²§ ¯¤£"«¨­£#´±µ¤²¶§¤±¤ £±¨µ¤±²¢ ­­®³°´¨¢ª«¸²¤¤ ±®´­£³§¤¢®±­¤±²®¥³§¨²¯ ±³¨¢´« ±Ǿ"«¨­£#´±µ¤±® £ ¥¤ ³´±¤ȁ 1 2® £'¨µ¤ ³ ««Ǿ¯¤±¨®£ȁ Ifonecarerrorsandgoesoverthecenterline,thedegreeoftheturnissoshortthat carscannoteasilyadjustanycorrectionsnecessaryto Ǿ itmakesmorelogisticalsensetoplaceanyroad,privateorpublic, atadifferentlocationthaninthecenterofthemostdangerousandvisionobstructed BlindCurveonCapitalDriveespeciallysincethereareotheralternativeswhere CapitalDriveliesstraightandunimpededfromblindcurves ȁ GiventhefactCapitalDriveisbasicallyclearfromtheexitoftheSshapedBlind Curvetothetop,andonthedownsidetoAltaVistaStreet,itmakesmoresensetohave theentrance/exitofanewprivateroadonastretchofroadthatisstraightandeasy toseearound,andthatalsoiseasytoenterorexitwithoutconsiderationofunsafeor difficulttrafficissueslikeaapproachingcaronablindcurve. 2 ThetwoideallocationsforanewprivateroadarethePinkHouseat2965Capital Drive,andtheBlueHouse(MarriotHouse)at2855CapitalDrive;orbetweentheBlue Houseat2855CapitalDriveandthehouselocatedat2843CapitalDrive. Placingabusynew roadonadifficultblindcurveisimpractical;andshouldnotbe donewhenbetteroptionsalreadyoccur. ³§¤­´¬¡¤±®¥­¤¶§®¬¤²²´¦¦¤²³¤££®´¡«¤²³§¤­´¬¡¤±®¥ §®´²¤² «±¤ £¸§¤±¤­®¶ 3 GIOELLO Nick R From:Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 8:44 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Cc:Tom Bruno; WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP); Sheryl Kelly; Nathaniel Teich; Jason Brown; CW Murchison; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Cathy Johnson; Faris Cassell; John Curtis; Brent Lorscheider; Becky Dorsey; Gunnar Schlieder Ph.D CEG; Peter Craycroft Subject:CHPUD Response Committee's Reply to May 15, 2018 Bill Kloos Letter Attachments:Response to Kloos Ltr 052118.pdf Hi Nick. Please enter into the record the attached Response Committee's reply to the Bill Kloos letter dated May 15, 2018 in which he seeks to strike from the record certain statements contained in the Committee's May 7, 2018 Appeal document. Please also provide copies of the attached response to the Planning Commission for tomorrow night's 6:00 PM meeting. I'd appreciate a return email confirming your receipt of this message and the fact that you have entered it into the record. Thanks as always for your help. 1 May 21, 2018 Eugene Planning Commission c/o Eugene Planning and Development 99 West 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97401 Re: Response to Kloos Letter of May 15, 2018 Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Dear Commissioners: The May 15, 2018 Kloos letter states: raises issues and sub-issues not put forth to the HO. This evidence, and the appeal issues raised by the neighbors that are based on this evidence, should be stricken from the The Joint Response Committee of the Fairmount Neighbors Association and the Laurel Hill 20, 2018 Decision of the Hearings Official. We will show below that these statements should not be stricken from the record. Appeal Introduction; Page 1 para 4. Kloos states: The introduction makes statements of fact about attitudes and support that are not in the record. The statement is: 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. * * * * Not one private individual offered testimony at the Hearing in favor of the development. The first sentence is a new factual allegation that is not supported by the record. The second sentence is a new factual allegation that contrary to the evidence in the record. See, for example, the March 9, 2018, letter of support from retired circuit court Judge Gregory G. Foote, resident on Capital Drive directly across the street from this site. I have always assumed that the Dreyer property would someday be developed, and was pleased to learn that it would be my neighbors who did so, rather than some disinterested out-of- The Committee responds: the record. First, both th not all. Second, the letter dated March 9, 2018 was submitted after the March 7 Hearing. The at-explanatory. Regardless, the Kloos letter does not demonstrate that the statements apply to approval criteria, and, therefore, the issues identified by the Kloos letter are immaterial to the pending appeal, especially in the absence of prejudice to the substantial rights of the applicant. Appeal Issue 28; Page 30 last para. Kloos states: The evidence on road distances and elevation differences between the site and fire stations is new evidence. The Committee responds: Data on road distances and elevation differences are included under EC 9.8320 (1), Policy A.11 the bracket of distance and elevations established by this data. Although Kloos uses the plural point, itself, does not contravene the facts of the impediments for emergency vehicles inherent in the sub-standard roadways as in our discussions in Criteria EC 9.8320 (5), (6), and (11). Appeal Issue #10; Page 14. Kloos states: This entire appeal issue is based on evidence about the distinction between the professional qualifications of arborist and foresters. This evidence is not in the record. The Committee responds: 27, 2018), as follows: ice of controlling the establishment, growth, forestry involves managing forest systems and entire ecosystems, including impacts on watersheds, soils, and env Appeal Issue #23; page 24: Kloos states: its proportional share or public water improvements needed for this project and the ts to create a large financial obligation, would be secured in some manner, optimally by cash deposit or the subject The Committee responds: The issue of non-securitization of the document in question was raised by the Committee in Gioello. Mr. Gioello confirmed receipt of this email and entered it into the record. See Item 3 (d) in this email attachment which reads as follows: on should Kloos states: against the EWEB agreement in the March 30 letter from Susan Hoffman. The Committee responds: many areas, the eight items that followed. Furthermore, the Committee thoroughly discussed the inadequacies and shortcomings of this document prior to in the record prior to the Kloos May 15, 2018 letter. Kloos states: commitment document is real or forged. This is a new objection not raised in the list of objections filed against the EWEB agreement in the March 30 letter from Susan Hoffman. The Committee responds: See above response. Appeal Issue #24; page 26: Kloos states: In item 3 the opponents make an evidentiary assertion about the testimony of City of Eugene Scott Gillespie. He stated his professional opinion about road safety. The claim but saying that his evidence is erroneous and false is itself an evidentiary statement that cannot be made for the first time in this appeal. The Committee responds: The sta Conte in a January 31, 2018 email to Nick Gioello, Scott Gillespie, and the Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager. Paul Conte requested in his email that it be entered into the record at that time. relevant evidentiary statemen absolutely no credible evidence that forcing an increased number of pedestrians and cars to share Appeal Issue #28; Page 32. Kloos states: manent \[sic\] damage and deplete the environmental quality of the wooded hillsides not just within the site but certainly off site in the adjacent neighborhood areas and beyond in the city view-shed wherever visible The Committee responds: se Document and Appeal. a result, the visual impact will be significant resulting in a discernable void in the South Hills Document. vious that, from a Kloos states: Challenge to 12-page letter from Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG The Schlieder memo is referenced and incorporated into the appeal statement at two locations. It contains new evidence and issues not raised below. It should be stricken in addition to issues in the appeal statement that rely on it. 1. The Schlieder memo includes a new, collateral attack on the acknowledgment of the Goal 5 program in the Metro Plan for Scenic Sites. See page 1: address how development of the sites inclu at the same time preserving their natural scenic values. In this context it appears that the provisions of EC 9.6710 may yet be applicable. Otherwise, there is no guidance on how Dr. Sch Technical Review, Geotechnical/Geologic Assessment and Addendum, Capital th Hill PUD, Branch Engineering (Feb 6, and May 30, 2017) paragraph: ȏ But on page 20 of the Staff Report staff indicates "...the subject property is included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, per the April 12,1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper... ". However, that working paper and its presumed map is not in evidence, and nowhere to be found on the City's web site. In fact, none of the information about Goal 5 resources on the City's web site includes the subject property.”(Emphasis added). Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 5 requirements for wildlife habitat for the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary. The inventory consisted of data from the Oregon Natural Heritage Program and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which included: threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species habitat information; sensitive bird site inventories; and wildlife species of concern and/or habitats of concern identified and mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Goal 5 wetland and riparian corridor requirements for the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary adequately address fish habitat. Consequently, for purposes of applying Goal 5 requirements to this portion of the metro area, wildlife does not include fish habitat. Significant wildlife habitat includes only those sites where one or more of the following conditions exist: the habitat has been documented to perform a life support function for wildlife species listed by the federal government as a threatened or endangered species or by the State of Oregon as a threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species; the habitat has documented occurrences of more than incidental use by a threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species; the habitat has been documented as a sensitive bird nesting, roosting, or watering resource site for osprey or great blue herons; the habitat has been documented to be essential in achieving policies or population objectives specified in a wildlife species management plan III-C-10 adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission; or the area is identified and mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as habitat for a wildlife species of concern. (Metro Plan p. III-C-9/10) The site does not qualify according to any of these categories. The Metro Plan addresses sites that do not qualify under the above categories: C.13 Wetland, riparian corridor, or wildlife habitat sites inside the UGB identified after adoption of the applicable Goal 5 inventory of significant sites, that have not been previously considered for inclusion in the inventory, shall be addressed in the following manner: a.The jurisdiction within which the natural resource is located shall study the site according to the requirements in the Goal 5 administrative rule. Upon the completion of the study, the affected jurisdiction shall determine whether the b. identified natural resource is significant according to the adopted significance criteria of the affected jurisdiction. III-C-11 c. If the newly identified site is determined significant, the affected jurisdiction shall complete the Goal 5 requirements for the site, which includes adoption of protection measures for sites identified for protection. £ȁ 4§¤  ¥¥¤¢³¤£ ©´±¨²£¨¢³¨®­ ¶¨«« ­®³¨¥¸  ¥¥¤¢³¤£ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶­¤±²  ­£ ¨­³¤±¤²³¤£ ¯ ±³¨¤² ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ ¯±®¢¤²²ȁ The City has not presented any evidence that this process was employed to include the site in the not completed the requirements for inclusion of the site as a Goal 5 Resource. Resource was based on the fact that the City did not appear to have followed pertinent policies in this designation. This may be a slightly more detailed argument regarding the Goal 5 . Kloos states: 2. The Schlieder memo geotechnical/geologic investigation with respect to slope stability (see pages 8-9) and soil creep (see pages 9-10). See especially paragraph 4 on page 10 which is chock full of new evidence about soil creep as evidenced by moving mailboxes and pavement deflection. Dr. Sch The idea that the lateral pavement deflection observed in Floral Hill Drive is the result of the geotechnical consultant during their rebuttal on March 28, 2018 (second open record period). on page 1, third paragraph: “2. The areas indicated as having offset pavement are at a mailbox location and in an area of transverse pavement cracks that indicate failure in the soil material providing the lateral support for the roadway, which in this case appears to be anthropogenic placed fill material.” supporting their opinion, instead presenting a couple of unannotated photographs showing a couple of mailboxes along Floral Hill Drive. By contrast, the Addendum presented by GeoScience on March 21, 2018 (first open record period), contains photographs which have been annotated to show straight lines and the deflection of the pavement, and on page 1, second paragraph states: )³ ¨² °´¨³¤ ¤µ¨£¤­³  «²® ¶§¤­ ²³ ­£¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ ±® £ Ȩ²¤¤  ³³ ¢§¤£ ¯§®³®² £¤¬®­²³± ³¨­¦ ³§¤ “ ®¥¥²¤³ȩȁ 4§¤ ±® £  ¯¯¤ ±² ³® § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ®¥¥²¤³  ³ «¤ ²³ Ε ³® Ζ ¥¤¤³ ¨­  ­ ¤ ²³¤±«¸ £¨±¤¢³¨®­ȁȐ new. It is in the record, in both . Kloos states: -hearted study of the site designed to find as Beginning on page 4 of my initial review document it states: The applicant did perform some subsurface exploration using shallow backhoe or trackhoe test pits. In all, Branch Engineering excavated 10 test pits, the locations of which are shown on the figure on the following page. All test pits were located in the more gently sloping area at the top of the ridge. None of them were excavated on the steeper slopes or in the immediate vicinity of the landslide mapped by the applicant’s Engineering Geologist. The easternmost test pit (TP-5) was located on Lot 13 directly in the area between the two apparent slope movements affecting the PUD. Even TP-8, which easily could have been placed at the mapped scarp on Lot 16, was placed around 100 feet from there at the far (northern) boundary of Lot 15. No test pits at all were installed on the southernmost two lots despite significant geomorphic evidence of slope movement being present. No test pits at all were installed in the area later slated for installation of the storm-water discharge for much of the eastern half of the PUD. The 10 test pits describe an area that is on the order of 2.7 acres, which represents around 20% of the entire PUD’s area. Had these test pits all been located in the much steeper eastern portion of the site, they might have provided valuable information to address EC 9.6710 and EC 9.8320. However, as it is, the test pits were installed in the most gently sloping portion of the PUD and provide no information whatever regarding the issue of stability of the east-facing slope.” I would offer that the two statements are equivalent, with the statement in the appeals document summarizing the statement in the original GeoScience review document. Date: May 22, 2018 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Joint Response Committee of Fairmount Neighbors Association and Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Re: Response to Appeal Issues from Nicholas Gioello in the Planning Staff’s Agenda Item Summary for Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) dated May 22, 2018. The Response Committee, the Fairmount Neighbors Association and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens all want to thank the City Planning Staff, especially the lead planner on this project, Nick Gioello, for his professionalism and cooperation. We also thank, in advance, the Planning Commission for their careful consideration of the crucial development issues raised by this proposed planned unit development. Just as these City agencies have the responsibility as custodians of the quality and integrity of the built and natural environments of our community, so too our Response Committee represents the two neighborhoods – the chartered neighborhood associations and the overwhelming majority of residents – where the proposed CHPUD would be built. We are strongly concerned about the precedents that would be set if developments are allowed to encroach on the unique and cherished forested ridgeline. This urban greenway is viewed and used as a defining environment of the City. We continue to argue that the Hearings Official’s decision made serious errors in failing to consider and rule on key issues regarding the proposed CHPUD’s impact on such issues as trees and environmental quality; traffic safety and emergency response; geology and landslide hazards, and more. Below in this memorandum, the Committee will briefly address the appeal issues discussed in the Planning Staff’s Agenda Item Summary for Capital Hill PUD (City file PDT 17-1) dated May 22, 2018 (the Summary’). Although the appeal items are not numbered in Mr. Gioello’s Summary, the Committee has numbered the items in the order that they appear. 1. Conditions of Approval It is not the Response Committee’s intent “to invalidate the use of conditions of approval to remedy a lack of compliance with approval criteria.” Rather, the Committee relies on the LUBA statement in Culligan vs. Washington County, LUBA No. 2008-038, page 8: “…we believe that an applicant’s promise or statement regarding the proposed development is not an adequate substitute for a condition of approval that is necessary to ensure compliance with applicable approval criteria, even if that promise or statement occurs in the application narrative.” The Committee questions whether Staff’s statement on page 4 of the Agenda Item Summary that a future Type II process as it applies to a Final PUD Application is sufficient. The Committee’s concerns relate to the fact that, per EC 9.7200 through 9.7220, the next step in the approval process is Planned Unit Development – Final Plan utilizing the Type II Application Procedure. The Type II Procedure does not provide for a public hearing before the planning director makes his final decision. Therefore, the public’s involvement in the approval process is limited to merely providing written statements in advance, rather than participating in an open forum. Њ The Committee references as relevant the text contained in LUBA 2006-084 Butte Conservancy affirmed decision, which is a quote from Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442 (1992) “…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.” If the Hearings Officer defers compliance with any approval criteria until a later stage, that stage must include the same required notice and hearing as the PUD Tentative stage. Deferring a Type III approval condition to a future Type II approval process does not comply with this requirement. 2. Issues Related to Preservation of Trees and Other Natural Features The Planning Department states: “When reviewing these appeal issues, staff recommends the commission consider that the land is zoned for residential use, and while standards for sensitive design are high, the criteria do not require preservation of the entire site.” The Response Committee has never stated that we require the applicant for the Capital Hill PUD preserve “the entire site.” The we have insisted that the development meet the criteria for the codes, especially the South Hills Study in relation to tree preservation and the forested ridgeline above 901 feet. We accept the designated preservation and conservation tracts proposed, but express concern with assigning them to CC&Rs that are not defined and stipulated in the development proposal. Although the base zone is residential use, state law created the framework for overlay zones to protect certain areas within city limits. The Capital Hill PUD falls within the South Hills Study area, which imposes a higher standard than simple residential zoning. The Hearings Official claims that 9.9630 (1) (a) does not apply to the Capital Hill PUD application because the land is not identified for park preservation by the city, and that therefore the Hearings Official is not required to offer findings. According to McGowan v. City of Eugene, LUBA No. 92-187, and Highland Condominium v. City of Eugene, LUBA No. 98-082, the Hearings Official is incorrect. As stated in Highland, regarding “mandatory approval standards” (page 20), “… the 901-foot Preservation Policy expressly requires that the City adot findings does addressing the purpose statements” (lines 12-13). According to these decisions, 9.9630 (1) (a) apply to the portion of the Capital Hill PUD above 901 feet. The explicit intent of 9.9630 (1) (a) (1) and (2) requires that land developed through the PUD process offer protection for the portion of the site above 901 feet. The Hearings Official and the City planning department also erroneously claim that the applicant meets many of the purposes of 9.9603 (1) (a) (2) by preserving land on the eastern slope of the proposed Capital Hill PUD. However, all but a small 1100-square-foot sliver of the preserved land is below 901 feet. The applicant cannot use land below 901 feet to meet code requirements for land above 901feet. The applicant fails to meet any of the seven purposes outlined in 9.9630 (a) (2) above 901feet. Therefore, the applicant quite simply fails to meet 9.9630 (1) (a). The Response Committee insists that the applicant meet the higher standards established by the overlay zone. The flexibility afforded the applicant to propose a development according to the PUD process also entails conforming to all relevant codes and refinement plan policies. The applicant failed to do so. The section of the South Hills Study stipulated in EC 9.9630 (3) (g) stipulates: “That planned unit development review shall be based on recognition of both public and private interest. In areas of significant conflict … primacy shall be given to the public interest in any Ћ determination.” The proposed development does not minimize impacts and preserve existing trees “in areas of significant conflict.” 3. Geotechnical Evaluation Of particular concern, with regard to the Hearings Official’s deferral of approval issue, is her decision with regard to 9.9630 (3) (c) that states “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.” Dr. Gunnar Schlieder’s geotechnical analysis for the Response Committee makes clear that the applicant’s geotechnical report does not constitute an “adequate review” of the site. The Hearings Official and City Staff indicate that a future “geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer, with specific recommendations for design and construction standards, shall be provided with any application for Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permits, as well as building permits and site development permits for the initial construction of infrastructure and residences on individual lots.” However, this deferral as quoted from Condition of Approval # 10, does not avail the public access to the approval process. According to Dr. Gunnar Schlieder, only 20% of the proposed PUD area was assessed by the applicant’s geotechnical investigation. The remaining analysis of the PUD area is dependent upon future compliance with Condition of Approval #10. Consequently the Hearings Official is relying on future analysis to ensure that the site will not be a risk to public health and safety. But, EC 9.8320 (6) stipulates that this determination be made at the Tentative PUD Application stage, not at any future approval stage such as the PEPI process, site development permits, or building permits. 4. Fencing This issue is discussed at the bottom of Page 28 and the top of page 29 in the Community Appeal document dated 5/7/2018. The Committee is appreciative of Staff’s supportive position regarding the applicant’s proposal to build a 6-foot-high see-through agricultural type fence along the eastern boundary line of the subject property. Staff indicates that the presence of this type of fence would “nullify the utility of Tract A as a wildlife corridor.” However, the Committee points out that this same type of fencing also appears to be proposed for a substantial portion of the project’s southern boundary to the point where the southern property line meets “neighbor’s fence at Lot 4” and perhaps along the property’s entire northern boundary which abuts Hendricks Park. See notes on Site Plan L 2.0. The Committee maintains that existing wildlife corridors are also present in Hendricks Park and at the southern boundary of Tract A where it borders the southern edge of Lot 19. Therefore, the Committee requests that Staff’s current proposal to eliminate the 6-foot fence at the eastern boundary be expanded to include any similar fence along the northern and southern property boundaries. The Committee also maintains its position that the Hearings Official erred in her decision because she did not address the issue of allowable fencing between individual lots. Throughout the applicant’s several hundred pages of written submissions, the prohibition of fences between individual lots is only mentioned in one sentence on page 26 of 83 of the 8/22/17 Application, wherein it states: “In addition, the CC&Rs for the project will prohibit the construction of fences between individual lots.” The Hearings Official’s failure to require documentation of this prohibition either in a Condition of Approval or as a binding notation on the final site plan also nullifies the subject property’s “wildlife corridor” characteristic that the applicant touts throughout the submission. Ќ GIOELLO Nick R From:Helen Buzenberg <kmahelen@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:14 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Comment on capital hill PUD IźbźĭƉͲ {ǒĬƒźƷƷźƓŭĭƚƒƒĻƓƷğŭğźƓŅƚƩƷŷĻ/ğƦźƷğƌIźƌƌt 5ğƦƦĻğƌŷĻğƩźƓŭΉƒĻĻƷźƓŭ 5ĻğƩƦƌğƓƓźƓŭĭƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓʹ ŷĻƩĻŷğǝĻĬĻĻƓƒğƓǤǝğƌźķźƭƭǒĻƭĬƩƚǒŭŷƷǒƦĬǤƷŷĻĭƚƓĭĻƩƓĻķğƓķƉƓƚǞƌĻķŭĻğĬƌĻƦĻƚƦƌĻźƓƚǒƩƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩŷƚƚķ ğƦƦĻğƌźƓŭƷŷźƭķĻĭźƭźƚƓƷƚŭƚŅƚƩǞğƩķǞźƷŷƷŷźƭ/ğƦźƷğƌIźƌƌtƩƚƆĻĭƷ͵‘ŷğƷƒğǤƓƚƷŷğǝĻĬĻĻƓƒĻƓƷźƚƓĻķźƭ ƷŷğƷźƷźƭğ ĭƌğƭƭźƭƷƦƩƚƆĻĭƷğƓķƓƚƷźƓƷŷĻĬĻƭƷźƓƷĻƩĻƭƷƚŅ9ǒŭĻƓĻğƭğǞŷƚƌĻ͵LğƒğƦƦĻğƌźƓŭƷƚǤƚǒƷƚƩĻǝĻƩƭĻǤƚǒƩķĻĭźƭźƚƓƚƓƷŷźƭ ƦƩƚƆĻĭƷğƓķƓƚƷğƌƌƚǞźƷƷƚŭƚŅƚƩǞğƩķ͵.ǤĭƌğƭƭźƭƷLƒĻğƓźƷźƭƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķĬǤƩźĭŷƦĻƚƦƌĻĬǒźƌķźƓŭŷƚƒĻƭŅƚƩƩźĭŷƦĻƚƦƌĻ Ʒƚ ƌźǝĻ͵ŷźƭźƭƓƚƷğĬƚǒƷğŅŅƚƩķğĬƌĻŷƚǒƭźƓŭͲźƷƭƓƚƷğĬƚǒƷĭğƩźƓŭŅƚƩƷŷĻĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤƚƩƷŷĻĻƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷ͵LƷƭğĬƚǒƷƒğƉźƓŭ ƒƚƓĻǤ͵LƷγƭƦǒƩĻƌǤƦƩƚŅźƷƒƚƷźǝğƷĻķğƓķƓƚƷğƭǒƭƷğźƓğĬƌĻĭƚƒƦƩĻŷĻƓƭźǝĻǞźƓǞźƓŅƚƩĻǝĻƩǤƚƓĻ͵ŷźƭƒğƉĻƭźƷĭƌğƭƭźƭƷ͵ wĻĭĻƓƷƌǤƷŷĻƚƩźŭźƓğƌŷƚƒĻƚƓƚǒƩŷźƌƌƭźķĻͲΛƚƓğƓbĻƭƭ{ƷΜǞğƭķĻƒƚƌźƭŷĻķƷƚƒğƉĻǞğǤŅƚƩğƓĻǞŷƚƒĻ͵LƷŷğƭ źƩƩĻǝƚĭğĬƌǤĭŷğƓŭĻķƚǒƩƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩŷƚƚķ͵LğƒƓƚƷğŭğźƓƭƷĭŷğƓŭĻźƓŭĻƓĻƩğƌͲĬǒƷźƓƷŷźƭĭğƭĻͲƓƚƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩƭǞĻƩĻ ĭƚƓƭǒƌƷĻķğƓķƒğƓǤŅĻƌƷğƌźĻƓğƷĻķĬǤƷŷźƭƭǒķķĻƓğĭƷźƚƓ͵LƷǞğƭźƓƷŷĻƓĻǞƚǞƓĻƩƭƩźŭŷƷƭƷƚķƚƷŷźƭͲĬǒƷƷŷĻźƩƓĻŭğƷźǝĻ ĻƓƷƩğƓĭĻźƓƷƚƷŷĻƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩŷƚƚķǞźƌƌƷğƉĻğƌƚƓŭƷźƒĻƷƚƒĻƓķ͵ŷźƭźƭƆǒƭƷğƭƒğƌƌĻǣğƒƦƌĻĭƚƒƦğƩĻķƷƚƷŷĻƒğƓǤƒğƓǤ ƦƩƚĬƌĻƒƭƷŷğƷǞźƌƌƚĭĭǒƩƭŷƚǒƌķƷŷĻ/ğƦźƷğƌIźƌƌt 5ƦƩƚƆĻĭƷŭƚŅƚƩǞğƩķ͵ LƷźƭƷźƒĻƷƚƒğƉĻƒƚƩĻǞŷƚƌźƭƷźĭķĻĭźƭźƚƓƭğƭƷŷĻźƭƭǒĻƭğƩĻĭƚƒƦƌĻǣğƓķƓƚƷƭźƒƦƌĻƷƚƭƚƌǝĻ͵‘ŷƚƌźƭƷźĭķĻĭźƭźƚƓƭƷŷğƷ ǞƚƩƉŅƚƩƒğƓǤƦĻƚƦƌĻğƓķƓƚƷƆǒƭƷƷŷĻƩźĭŷŅĻǞ͵ŷĻƩĻźƭƦƌĻƓƷǤƚŅƷŷğƷŭƚźƓŭƚƓğƷƷŷĻƓğƷźƚƓğƌƌĻǝĻƌğƓķźƷźƭķğƒğŭźƓŭ ƚǒƩĭƚǒƓƷƩǤ͵tƌĻğƭĻķƚĬĻƷƷĻƩŅƚƩƚǒƩƌƚĭğƌĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ͵LƓƷŷĻЋЊƭƷĭĻƓƷǒƩǤĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤźƓƦǒƷƒğƷƷĻƩƭͲĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ĭƚƓĭĻƩƓƭƒğƷƷĻƩ͵\[ĻƷγƭƒğƉĻƷŷźƭğǞźƓǞźƓŅƚƩğƌƌƚŅ9ǒŭĻƓĻ͵ {źƓĭĻƩĻƌǤͲ IĻƌĻƓ.ǒǩĻƓĬĻƩŭğƓķağƩƉœĻƓƷƓĻƩ {ĻƓƷŅƩƚƒƒǤźtŷƚƓĻ 1 The trees located in the proposed Capital Hill development area are part of a watershed. A watershed. They make up a vital forest that is part of a bigger vital forest that needs to remain as is. This vital forested area should be rezoned and preserved. The cutting down of trees for the Capital Hill PUD is not just a neighborhood issue, but a City of Eugene issue. It is not just the people who live in the neighborhood who will be detrimentally affected, but the City itself. That means everyone and everything. The soil in this forest is moist. Without protection from sun-blocking tree cover, it will dry out. This forest area is cool. Removing trees will result in more heat being held in. This forest plays a critical role in the health of the citizens of Eugene. Cut down trees and the particulate matter and pollution that already cause hazardous air will worsen. These trees act as a protective barrier to the trees in Hendricks Park. Cut them down, and the trees in Hendricks Park will be exposed, leading to degradation and ruin. The trees of this forest take water from the soil and release it into the atmosphere. Air passing over them picks up this moisture, fueling rain. Loss of these trees will result in an even worse flip to dry conditions than we are already experiencing. When trees disappear, so does rain. These trees retain water and allow it to be released slowly. Cut down trees, and water will travel downhill faster, causing soil erosion, flooding and the dumping of pollutants and sediment into our streams and rivers. My husband and I live at the bottom the Capital Hill area. We already have year-round runoff problems from rain and from the people above us watering. Our neighbor’s basement floods. More development will make matters worse. Many societies in past history have made the mistake of cutting down their trees, and paid the price. One exception is the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The government has forbidden any development in their forest watershed. They could cut the trees down to make way for high-priced homes and increase their tax base, but they know that to do so would lead to their downfall. Without those trees, they would be without protection and without rain. Cutting down trees—even a few—will make Eugene just another hot, drought-ridden place that will look like and be like every other city that has ignored its need for, and dependency on, its forests. The best way to preserve a forest is to leave it alone. Elizabeth and Jim Langston 1957 E. 28 Ave. th Eugene, OR 97403 The trees located in the proposed Capital Hill development area are part of a watershed. A watershed. They make up a vital forest that is part of a bigger vital forest that needs to remain as is. This vital forested area should be rezoned and preserved. The cutting down of trees for the Capital Hill PUD is not just a neighborhood issue, but a City of Eugene issue. It is not just the people who live in the neighborhood who will be detrimentally affected, but the City itself. That means everyone and everything. The soil in this forest is moist. Without protection from sun-blocking tree cover, it will dry out. This forest area is cool. Removing trees will result in more heat being held in. This forest plays a critical role in the health of the citizens of Eugene. Cut down trees and the particulate matter and pollution that already cause hazardous air will worsen. These trees act as a protective barrier to the trees in Hendricks Park. Cut them down, and the trees in Hendricks Park will be exposed, leading to degradation and ruin. The trees of this forest take water from the soil and release it into the atmosphere. Air passing over them picks up this moisture, fueling rain. Loss of these trees will result in an even worse flip to dry conditions than we are already experiencing. When trees disappear, so does rain. These trees retain water and allow it to be released slowly. Cut down trees, and water will travel downhill faster, causing soil erosion, flooding and the dumping of pollutants and sediment into our streams and rivers. My husband and I live at the bottom the Capital Hill area. We already have year-round runoff problems from rain and from the people above us watering. Our neighbor’s basement floods. More development will make matters worse. Many societies in past history have made the mistake of cutting down their trees, and paid the price. One exception is the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The government has forbidden any development in their forest watershed. They could cut the trees down to make way for high-priced homes and increase their tax base, but they know that to do so would lead to their downfall. Without those trees, they would be without protection and without rain. Cutting down trees—even a few—will make Eugene just another hot, drought-ridden place that will look like and be like every other city that has ignored its need for, and dependency on, its forests. The best way to preserve a forest is to leave it alone. Elizabeth and Jim Langston 1957 E. 28 Ave. th Eugene, OR 97403 May 21, 2018 Eugene Planning Commission c/o Eugene Planning and Development 99 West 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97401 Re: Response to Kloos Letter of May 15, 2018 Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Dear Commissioners: The May 15, 2018 Kloos letter states: raises issues and sub-issues not put forth to the HO. This evidence, and the appeal issues raised by the neighbors that are based on this evidence, should be stricken from the The Joint Response Committee of the Fairmount Neighbors Association and the Laurel Hill 20, 2018 Decision of the Hearings Official. We will show below that these statements should not be stricken from the record. Appeal Introduction; Page 1 para 4. Kloos states: The introduction makes statements of fact about attitudes and support that are not in the record. The statement is: 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. * * * * Not one private individual offered testimony at the Hearing in favor of the development. The first sentence is a new factual allegation that is not supported by the record. The second sentence is a new factual allegation that contrary to the evidence in the record. See, for example, the March 9, 2018, letter of support from retired circuit court Judge Gregory G. Foote, resident on Capital Drive directly across the street from this site. I have always assumed that the Dreyer property would someday be developed, and was pleased to learn that it would be my neighbors who did so, rather than some disinterested out-of- The Committee responds: the record. First, both th not all. Second, the letter dated March 9, 2018 was submitted after the March 7 Hearing. The at-explanatory. Regardless, the Kloos letter does not demonstrate that the statements apply to approval criteria, and, therefore, the issues identified by the Kloos letter are immaterial to the pending appeal, especially in the absence of prejudice to the substantial rights of the applicant. Appeal Issue 28; Page 30 last para. Kloos states: The evidence on road distances and elevation differences between the site and fire stations is new evidence. The Committee responds: Data on road distances and elevation differences are included under EC 9.8320 (1), Policy A.11 the bracket of distance and elevations established by this data. Although Kloos uses the plural point, itself, does not contravene the facts of the impediments for emergency vehicles inherent in the sub-standard roadways as in our discussions in Criteria EC 9.8320 (5), (6), and (11). Appeal Issue #10; Page 14. Kloos states: This entire appeal issue is based on evidence about the distinction between the professional qualifications of arborist and foresters. This evidence is not in the record. The Committee responds: 27, 2018), as follows: ice of controlling the establishment, growth, forestry involves managing forest systems and entire ecosystems, including impacts on watersheds, soils, and env Appeal Issue #23; page 24: Kloos states: its proportional share or public water improvements needed for this project and the ts to create a large financial obligation, would be secured in some manner, optimally by cash deposit or the subject The Committee responds: The issue of non-securitization of the document in question was raised by the Committee in Gioello. Mr. Gioello confirmed receipt of this email and entered it into the record. See Item 3 (d) in this email attachment which reads as follows: on should Kloos states: against the EWEB agreement in the March 30 letter from Susan Hoffman. The Committee responds: many areas, the eight items that followed. Furthermore, the Committee thoroughly discussed the inadequacies and shortcomings of this document prior to in the record prior to the Kloos May 15, 2018 letter. Kloos states: commitment document is real or forged. This is a new objection not raised in the list of objections filed against the EWEB agreement in the March 30 letter from Susan Hoffman. The Committee responds: See above response. Appeal Issue #24; page 26: Kloos states: In item 3 the opponents make an evidentiary assertion about the testimony of City of Eugene Scott Gillespie. He stated his professional opinion about road safety. The claim but saying that his evidence is erroneous and false is itself an evidentiary statement that cannot be made for the first time in this appeal. The Committee responds: The sta Conte in a January 31, 2018 email to Nick Gioello, Scott Gillespie, and the Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager. Paul Conte requested in his email that it be entered into the record at that time. relevant evidentiary statemen absolutely no credible evidence that forcing an increased number of pedestrians and cars to share Appeal Issue #28; Page 32. Kloos states: manent \[sic\] damage and deplete the environmental quality of the wooded hillsides not just within the site but certainly off site in the adjacent neighborhood areas and beyond in the city view-shed wherever visible The Committee responds: se Document and Appeal. a result, the visual impact will be significant resulting in a discernable void in the South Hills Document. vious that, from a Kloos states: Challenge to 12-page letter from Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG The Schlieder memo is referenced and incorporated into the appeal statement at two locations. It contains new evidence and issues not raised below. It should be stricken in addition to issues in the appeal statement that rely on it. 1. The Schlieder memo includes a new, collateral attack on the acknowledgment of the Goal 5 program in the Metro Plan for Scenic Sites. See page 1: address how development of the sites inclu at the same time preserving their natural scenic values. In this context it appears that the provisions of EC 9.6710 may yet be applicable. Otherwise, there is no guidance on how Dr. Sch Technical Review, Geotechnical/Geologic Assessment and Addendum, Capital th Hill PUD, Branch Engineering (Feb 6, and May 30, 2017) paragraph: ȏ But on page 20 of the Staff Report staff indicates "...the subject property is included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, per the April 12,1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper... ". However, that working paper and its presumed map is not in evidence, and nowhere to be found on the City's web site. In fact, none of the information about Goal 5 resources on the City's web site includes the subject property.”(Emphasis added). Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene jointly completed the Goal 5 requirements for wildlife habitat for the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary. The inventory consisted of data from the Oregon Natural Heritage Program and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which included: threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species habitat information; sensitive bird site inventories; and wildlife species of concern and/or habitats of concern identified and mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Goal 5 wetland and riparian corridor requirements for the area between the UGB and the Plan Boundary adequately address fish habitat. Consequently, for purposes of applying Goal 5 requirements to this portion of the metro area, wildlife does not include fish habitat. Significant wildlife habitat includes only those sites where one or more of the following conditions exist: the habitat has been documented to perform a life support function for wildlife species listed by the federal government as a threatened or endangered species or by the State of Oregon as a threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species; the habitat has documented occurrences of more than incidental use by a threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species; the habitat has been documented as a sensitive bird nesting, roosting, or watering resource site for osprey or great blue herons; the habitat has been documented to be essential in achieving policies or population objectives specified in a wildlife species management plan III-C-10 adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission; or the area is identified and mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as habitat for a wildlife species of concern. (Metro Plan p. III-C-9/10) The site does not qualify according to any of these categories. The Metro Plan addresses sites that do not qualify under the above categories: C.13 Wetland, riparian corridor, or wildlife habitat sites inside the UGB identified after adoption of the applicable Goal 5 inventory of significant sites, that have not been previously considered for inclusion in the inventory, shall be addressed in the following manner: a.The jurisdiction within which the natural resource is located shall study the site according to the requirements in the Goal 5 administrative rule. Upon the completion of the study, the affected jurisdiction shall determine whether the b. identified natural resource is significant according to the adopted significance criteria of the affected jurisdiction. III-C-11 c. If the newly identified site is determined significant, the affected jurisdiction shall complete the Goal 5 requirements for the site, which includes adoption of protection measures for sites identified for protection. £ȁ 4§¤  ¥¥¤¢³¤£ ©´±¨²£¨¢³¨®­ ¶¨«« ­®³¨¥¸  ¥¥¤¢³¤£ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶­¤±²  ­£ ¨­³¤±¤²³¤£ ¯ ±³¨¤² ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ ¯±®¢¤²²ȁ The City has not presented any evidence that this process was employed to include the site in the not completed the requirements for inclusion of the site as a Goal 5 Resource. Resource was based on the fact that the City did not appear to have followed pertinent policies in this designation. This may be a slightly more detailed argument regarding the Goal 5 . Kloos states: 2. The Schlieder memo geotechnical/geologic investigation with respect to slope stability (see pages 8-9) and soil creep (see pages 9-10). See especially paragraph 4 on page 10 which is chock full of new evidence about soil creep as evidenced by moving mailboxes and pavement deflection. Dr. Sch The idea that the lateral pavement deflection observed in Floral Hill Drive is the result of the geotechnical consultant during their rebuttal on March 28, 2018 (second open record period). on page 1, third paragraph: “2. The areas indicated as having offset pavement are at a mailbox location and in an area of transverse pavement cracks that indicate failure in the soil material providing the lateral support for the roadway, which in this case appears to be anthropogenic placed fill material.” supporting their opinion, instead presenting a couple of unannotated photographs showing a couple of mailboxes along Floral Hill Drive. By contrast, the Addendum presented by GeoScience on March 21, 2018 (first open record period), contains photographs which have been annotated to show straight lines and the deflection of the pavement, and on page 1, second paragraph states: )³ ¨² °´¨³¤ ¤µ¨£¤­³  «²® ¶§¤­ ²³ ­£¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ ±® £ Ȩ²¤¤  ³³ ¢§¤£ ¯§®³®² £¤¬®­²³± ³¨­¦ ³§¤ “ ®¥¥²¤³ȩȁ 4§¤ ±® £  ¯¯¤ ±² ³® § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ®¥¥²¤³  ³ «¤ ²³ Ε ³® Ζ ¥¤¤³ ¨­  ­ ¤ ²³¤±«¸ £¨±¤¢³¨®­ȁȐ new. It is in the record, in both . Kloos states: -hearted study of the site designed to find as Beginning on page 4 of my initial review document it states: The applicant did perform some subsurface exploration using shallow backhoe or trackhoe test pits. In all, Branch Engineering excavated 10 test pits, the locations of which are shown on the figure on the following page. All test pits were located in the more gently sloping area at the top of the ridge. None of them were excavated on the steeper slopes or in the immediate vicinity of the landslide mapped by the applicant’s Engineering Geologist. The easternmost test pit (TP-5) was located on Lot 13 directly in the area between the two apparent slope movements affecting the PUD. Even TP-8, which easily could have been placed at the mapped scarp on Lot 16, was placed around 100 feet from there at the far (northern) boundary of Lot 15. No test pits at all were installed on the southernmost two lots despite significant geomorphic evidence of slope movement being present. No test pits at all were installed in the area later slated for installation of the storm-water discharge for much of the eastern half of the PUD. The 10 test pits describe an area that is on the order of 2.7 acres, which represents around 20% of the entire PUD’s area. Had these test pits all been located in the much steeper eastern portion of the site, they might have provided valuable information to address EC 9.6710 and EC 9.8320. However, as it is, the test pits were installed in the most gently sloping portion of the PUD and provide no information whatever regarding the issue of stability of the east-facing slope.” I would offer that the two statements are equivalent, with the statement in the appeals document summarizing the statement in the original GeoScience review document. GIOELLO Nick R From:Chris Ogle <ogle.chris@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 6:47 PM To:GIOELLO Nick R Subject:Capital Drive Development Hi Nick, I'm Chris Ogle. I cannot attend the May 22 meeting regarding the development planned for Capital Drive. I do want to say it's not safe. I have no doubt. Hopefully those who make decisions regarding this development will walk Spring from Fairmont to the top of Capital, or in reverse. This is the way in and out. There are few sidewalks and the shoulders are steep so it's difficult to step over the curb and off the road. If two cars are passing a pedestrian does have to step off the road. Everyone has to be alert. The traffic injury risk is already high. Please encourage on site evaluation. It's a narrow road, on a hill with many blind curves and few sidewalks. It's dangerous already. There is a lot of neighborhood opposition. Thanks, Chris 1