Date: July 11, 2024 <br /> <br />To: Nicholas Gioello, City of Eugene Associate Planner <br /> <br />From: George L. San Miguel <br /> 2616 Ridgemont Drive <br /> Eugene, Oregon 97405 <br /> <br />Re: Proposed Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 AND ST 24-3) <br /> <br />This is regarding the proposed Piculell Properties’ Planned Unit Development for 42 residential <br />lots (Lot 39 is divided into 4 sites) for up to 168 residential units on 15 acres along Randy Lane, <br />an area known locally as Videra Oak Meadow. I attended Picullel’s public meeting of May 7, <br />2024, and the City of Eugene’s virtual meeting of July 10, 2024. I object to this poorly conceived <br />scheme for various reasons, some of which I posted previously after the May 7 meeting (which I <br />am sure you must have) including the adverse and high-risk consequences of densification and <br />deforestation versus conservation and partnerships. Much of this also was articulated very well <br />by the citizen speakers last night so I will not reiterate those points now, but I do want to share <br />some additional observations for the record. <br /> <br />x I was struck by how impotent and useless was described to be the status of the scenic/natural <br />area Goal 5 for Videra Oak Meadows (and presumably for other City areas as well). This can <br />only be described as deception on the part of the planning officials who devised Goal 5 <br />without teeth. This deficiency needs to be corrected for future planning efforts. <br /> <br />x The Piculell proposal tries to cram as many developments as possible into these 15 acres <br />using high-risk designs and lack of safeguards. Like a burglar looking for a safe way to break <br />into the home they are casing, Piculell appears to be well informed about weaknesses and <br />loopholes in the City’s planning codes and processes. They demand exemptions to what few <br />protections may be in place such as for access roads, tree removal, and predevelopment <br />modifications to the property. And based on what I heard from last night’s meeting, the City <br />appears to be ready to let them in. <br /> <br />x Who will be responsible for bad decisions? Who pays for the consequences of bad decisions? <br />Piculell insists they are only putting in the roads and infrastructure to sell the lots. It would be <br />the lot buyers’ obligation to develop their lots sensibly and an HOA or the City would have to <br />enforce any sensible measures. They insist we must trust them, but if property is damaged or <br />people are hurt or die because of their poor design, they wash their hands of responsibility. <br />Would the City take responsibility for permitting a high-risk design or do you wash your <br />hands as well? <br /> <br />x There are alternatives. It seems to me Piculell’s proposal is so excessive that it was meant to <br />be rejected by the City in favor of something more reasonable, thus avoiding total rejection. <br />One such alternative would be to scale back the project to within the site’s carrying capacity. <br />If one access point were established at the lower/western segment of Randy Lane looping <br />through the central part of the parcel that lacks any significant tree cover, a manageable <br />number of lots could be developed in there while keeping the wooded ends of the parcel