From:Elena Brabb <br />To:GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject:Opposition to Land Development Plan - Application Nos. PUD 24-001 and ST 24-003 <br />Date:Wednesday, July 3, 2024 2:26:48 PM <br />You don't often get email from brabb.elena@gmail.com. Learn why this is important <br />[EXTERNAL ] <br />Dear Mr. Gioello, <br />I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed land development plan under <br />application numbers PUD 24-001 and ST 24-003. As a resident of Eugene, I am deeply <br />concerned that this development fails to meet several crucial building codes and poses <br />significant risks to our community and environment. <br />Address: 2889 Blacktail Dr <br />Environmental Concerns: The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (EC 9.8300) includes <br />the creation of a sustainable environment that preserves existing natural resources and <br />enhances habitat areas. The proposed development, however, threatens to destroy significant <br />natural resources, particularly trees that are vital to the local ecosystem. According to EC <br />9.8325(3) and EC 9.8520(5), areas outside the Goal 5 Inventory must adhere to Tree <br />Preservation codes (EC 9.6880-EC 9.6885). The applicant incorrectly asserts that the Goal 5 <br />Inventory applies to the entire 15-acre site, thereby ignoring the necessary tree preservation <br />rules. The trees in question, some of which are estimated to be between 150-300 years old, <br />play a critical role in preventing erosion, supporting wildlife, and maintaining the ecological <br />balance. As a Tree City USA, Eugene must protect these invaluable assets. <br />Safety and Emergency Access: The development plan also falls short in ensuring safe and <br />efficient access for emergency vehicles as required by EC 9.6815. The current design includes <br />long shared driveways and a hammerhead turn-around, which are inadequate for firetrucks. <br />Moreover, the developer is seeking an exception to the secondary access requirement (EC <br />9.6815(2)(d)), which compromises the safety of future residents. Alternative designs could <br />provide better access without sacrificing lots, as evidenced by the existing shared driveway <br />between Lots 6 & 7 and 1 & 2, and the old access entrance at the northwest corner. <br />Premature Site Alteration: Under EC 9.8330, site alteration is prohibited until final PUD <br />approval. The developer’s plan to reroute stormwater before final approval violates this code. <br />Additionally, EC 9.4930(3)(J) mandates specific standards to protect Category C streams <br />during construction. The developer has failed to provide a detailed plan to minimize the <br />impact on the stream, seeking to defer this crucial review. <br />Traffic Impact: While the Clear & Objective standards do not directly address traffic, the <br />potential increase in traffic due to this development cannot be ignored. The developer’s <br />assertion that the peak hour trips will only be 38 is misleading. Each lot could potentially <br />house multiple units, significantly increasing traffic beyond the initial estimate. Previous <br />traffic counts in the area have already shown a dramatic increase, and additional development <br />will only exacerbate the problem. The safety of our streets and the well-being of our <br />community demand that a Traffic Impact Analysis be conducted.