Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOpen Record 3rd Period (applicant final response)LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC OREGON LAND USE LAW th 375 W. 4AVENUE, SUITE 204 EUGENE, OR 97401 TEL BK: 541.343.8596BILL KLOOS WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COMBILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM July15, 2019 Eugene Planning Commission c/o Nick Gioello PlanningDivision th 99 W. 10Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Re: Applicant’s Final Argument -Capital Hill PUD(PDT 17-1), On Remand from LUBA Dear Planning Commissioners: We represent the Applicants for the Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1). This letter and attachedproposed findings and conditions represent the Applicants’ final argument to this remand proceeding. The Applicants respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the application and adopt the proposed findings and conditions of approval attached hereto. The attached comprehensive findings are amended from the findings we previously proposed and address issues raised by parties throughout the remand proceeding. The materials submitted by Neighbors and their attorneyfor the July 9 rebuttal period offer nothing new of substance for the Planning Commission to consider. One neighbor (Reynolds) expressed hope that the proposed development would have to exercise the same care for stormwater management that they have had to take with respect to their house now being constructed. Besides the fact that LUBA did not remand on the stormwater issue, stormwater has been effectively addressedby the proposal. The stormwater from the public facilities have been managed in a way that will not increasepeak volume flows off site or to any downstream location. The recommended standards for design and construction contained in the PUD’s geotechnical analysis, compliance with which is imposed by Condition of Approval 10, requires that all residences meet the same stringent standards of effective stormwater management that the proposal and the Reynolds have had to meet. The stormwater issues discussed in all of the materials submitted during the rebuttal period have been addressed. The rebuttal materials also express concerns about landslides, relying heavily on the GeoScience, Inc. materials. The GeoScience materials document the hazard areas identified by DOGAMI and diagram where landslides would flow should they occur. They ultimately speculate that landslides will happen and follow the approach typical of opposition testimony – claim that more data is needed. Nothing in the GeoScience materials conclusively states that Eugene Planning Commission July 15, 2019 Page 2 landslides will occur if development occurs as proposed. Nothing in the GeoSciencematerial states that properly engineered foundations will still result in landslide activity. The GeoScience material simply reiterates what DOGAMI’s studies –old and new –have stated, which is that the steep-sloped areas on and around the subjectproperty and throughout the South Hills have a relatively high risk of landslide activity. The concerns expressed by materials submitted during the rebuttal period simply reiterate that fact and express Neighbor’s concerns. The geotechnical analysis of the subject property and the potential effects of on-and off- site impacts that could flow from the proposal have been thoroughly examined. Could more be done? Sure, one can always do more. But would more give you, the decision-maker, any further useful information?No.The geotechnical evidence in the record has already led the Applicants to change their proposal to avoid areas their own geotechnical analysis concluded and recommended should be avoided. Branch Engineering has played it straight throughout this process. They mademade recommendations regarding site-specific construction requirements, which are now folded into Condition of Approval 10. Most importantly,Branch Engineering certified that the geologic conditions of the property, whendeveloped consistent with their recommendations, will be safe. The Planning Commission should conclude, based on Branch Engineering’s analysis that the proposed PUD does not pose a significant risk to public health, safetyand welfare and will not lead to adverse on-site or off-site impacts. Other issues raised by neighbors, such as environmental, safety and extreme weather event concerns are outside the scope of the remand proceeding and should be dismissed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should approve the Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) and adopt the attached findings and conditions of approval. Sincerely, Bill Kloos Bill Kloos Attachments: Attachment 1–Applicants’ Revised Draft Findings for Capital Hill PUD 2