opportunity to enhance habitat areas..." The entire Goal 5 process was for the determination of <br />areas and resources needing protection and preservation, not taking them away! Destroying <br />old native trees, certainly does nothing to preserve the existing natural resources and <br />absolutely does not enhance habitat areas, in fact it is quite the opposite. <br /> <br />Secondly, as you will see in the letter from Gabe Wayne, the applicant has repeatedly lied <br />regarding the source of the water on the northern portion of the lot in the area that is labeled <br />Lot 18 on the site map. We know Mr. Lundstrom has been aware of the truth from at least <br />2002, and an easy online search into the original PUD and plat for Mr. Wayne's lot, would <br />have revealed the source versus the various narratives put forth in writing. The applicant was <br />aware that the water is in fact sourced from a naturally occurring stream and still tried to <br />reroute it. Then, he lied on the application for a PUD, as well as the joint application for <br />wetland mitigation with the Army Corps of Engineers. Knowingly and with an intended <br />purpose, lying to a government entity should on its own be grounds for denial. <br /> <br />Finally, the very idea that a citizen who wants to be part of what is supposedly a public <br />process, is hindered from having meaningful input by requiring the citing of city planning <br />codes in order to show where the applicant fails to meet said codes, is ludicrous! The average <br />resident does not have the time to become conversant and knowledgeable about city building <br />codes when they are neither a builder, architect, land-use lawyer or city planner. To state at the <br />beginning of a public hearing that anyone who wishes to speak must reference code is another <br />way of telling citizens that they might as well not bother, and implies that if they don't follow <br />those rules, what they have to say will either be ignored or just listened to for the sake of <br />politeness. It is the job of the planners and Hearing Officer to determine if the speakers and <br />writers have concerns that merit a deeper look into a code that corresponds with their concern. <br />The entire process feels like smoke and mirrors, with the developer being the winner. The only <br />reason any submissions in this case (other than from lawyers involved) cite code, is because <br />this particular group of residents are deeply concerned about the preservation of the natural <br />resources (wetland, trees, stream) on this property, the addition of an unknown amount of <br />traffic on already dangerous streets, emergency vehicle access, flooding and erosions issues, <br />and being run roughshod over by a developer who doesn't care a fig for either the residents or <br />the property. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br />Julie Butler <br />3234 Jayhawk Ct <br />Eugene, OR 97405 <br />Sent from my Galaxy