under the previously completed study. The likely increase in traffic on Herald Lane resulting <br />from this development – especially since roads within the PUD are dead-end and do not <br />provide secondary access, resulting in drivers relying on existing road infrastructure to get in <br />and out of the neighborhood – will have direct, negative impacts on the 3 cars and drivers at <br />my single family home, our ability to easily and safely access our home, and the safety of our <br />children and animals when moving along Herald Lane. <br />· EC 9.8325 (3) and EC 9.8520 (5) exempt areas included in the Goal 5 inventory from Tree <br />Preservation Codes EC 9.6880-EC 9.6885. Lots 30-35 in the application include a Goal 5 <br />inventory stream and therefore the exception to abide by standard tree preservation codes <br />applies to development on those lots specifically within the 40 foot set-back buffer <br />mandated on either side of the Goal 5 stream. However, the remaining 36 lots do not qualify <br />for the Goal 5 inventory and as such are subject to Tree Preservation Codes EC 9.6880-EC <br />9.6885. The application fails to meet Eugene building codes as it does not account for <br />required tree preservation on Lots 1 through 29 and Lots 36 through 39-4. This is a <br />significant safety concern, as the mature trees on the site currently provide a high degree of <br />environmental services, including soil stabilization that helps prevent landslides. We recently <br />experienced a landslide in a residential part of the Videra Creek neighborhood, which was <br />found to be caused by hydrostatic pressure issues. There are over 1200 trees on the <br />property with many dated between 150-300 years old. The property is significantly sloped, <br />with a 145-foot elevation change up to 900 feet, and accommodates a significant amount of <br />water run-off and draining from homes that exist higher up the hill, above the property. The <br />current plan proposes to eliminate significant quantities of heritage trees that currently <br />provide soil stabilization, and which are key to landslide prevention. Additionally, landslide is <br />not a commonly covered hazard in most home insurance policies - a landslide addendum <br />commonly costs above the base cost for standard homeowner's insurance. If allowed to <br />proceed as planned, the proposed development would immediately place an economic <br />burden on owners of surrounding properties if they wished to protect their homes from the <br />increased risk of landslide directly resulting from the proposed development work, with <br />home insurance policies including landslide coverage costing more than double standard <br />policies. This is an unnecessary and undue burden for the property owner to shift onto <br />neighboring property owners, and the application should be required to account for tree <br />preservation to reduce landslide risk. <br /> <br />Thank you for considering my comments in your decision to approve or deny the application. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Kathryn Buss <br />3093 Herald Lane <br />Eugene, OR 97405