From:julieb17 <br />To:GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject:PDT 24-1 & ST 24-3 additional letter in opposition <br />Date:Wednesday, July 31, 2024 3:33:02 PM <br />[EXTERNAL ] <br />Dear Nick, <br />Please include this as an addition to my prior submission. <br />Thanks, <br />Julie Butler <br /> <br />Regarding PDT 24-1 & ST 24-3 <br />I have already submitted comments regarding the various codes I feel the application does not <br />meet, tries to subvert, attempts to sidestep, or endeavors to throw fog over. <br /> <br />I did state in my last submission that EC 9.8670(1) should apply. I would like to add that EC <br />9.8670(2) should also apply as Blacktail Dr. has already qualified for action under the city's <br />traffic calming program and is on the waiting list for budgetary reasons. <br /> <br />My additional comments concern 3 main areas: the apparent lack of protections for the very <br />trees the property's placement on the Scenic Areas map was meant to protect, the absolute <br />false (read: lying) narrative the applicant has knowingly pushed regarding the supposed <br />"trespass water" or "broken storm water pipe", and finally the absolute ridiculous requirements <br />put forth by the city for anyone wanting to have effective comments regarding an application <br />for development. <br /> <br />All of us involved in this process are aware of the huge oversight in failing to specifically <br />provide protections for trees within a Goal 5 property with the revised Clear & Objective <br />codes. Stating aloud that the city put the property on the Scenic Areas map because it was a <br />place with prominent and plentiful vegetation, which had the effect of making the entire lot a <br />Goal 5 property as opposed to just the Category C stream, which then exempted the developer <br />from protecting any trees at all, because the revision of the codes exempted tree protection <br />from Goal 5 areas without providing protections for trees on a Goal 5 property, emphasizes <br />how absolutely insane the situation is! What bothers me even more is that I specifically wrote <br />about my concerns regarding what I saw to be a lack of tree protections within the application <br />process and codes in an email to City Counselor Randy Groves, back on March 14th. When he <br />was unable to address my concerns, he brought in Alissa Hansen, Planning Director for the <br />City of Eugene. In her reply, on March 22nd, she stated, "Natural resources identified as <br />Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources typically have their own level of protection and <br />preservation requirements," which is apparently incorrect! <br /> <br />The city absolutely needs to rectify the situation. There are identified 150-300 year-old (and <br />possibly older) native Willamette Oaks on the property that absolutely need to be protected. <br />Taking down a quick growing Douglas Fir is one thing, taking down a 300 year old, slow <br />growing species that has become an object of concern and conservation due to dwindling <br />numbers, is something else entirely. One can not just simply replace it, especially as some are <br />older than the state of Oregon! The code describing the reasons for the codes of a PUD, EC <br />9.8300(1)(d) Purpose of a Planned Unit Development, states that the PUD is to, "Create a <br />sustainable environment that includes preservation of existing natural resources and the