Page | 2 <br />How Have We Gotten to This Point? <br />This extremely flawed plan is based on incorrect and incomplete information, does not meet key requirements of <br />our land use code, and is not aligned with the clear intent of Eugene’s long-standing picture of public benefit. The <br />planning staff’s recommendation to overrule the Hearings Officer, a professi onal expert with years of experience in <br />land use issues and very familiar with land use law, is deeply troubling. This plan ignores the preceding four <br />proposals for this property, all of which, while not perf ect, respected the need to balance development with <br />community values, including the preservation of wetlands and effective stormwater management (as shown in <br />Figure 1). It is puzzling that the applicant is unwilling to make any such accommodations. <br />The recent emphasis on affordable housing, while important, cannot justify creating new hazards and risking life <br />and property. Furthermore, the recent addition of exceptions to the code for Goal 5 properties —what I would call a <br />'poison pill'—has allowed the applicant to avoid critical studies regarding land stability, stormwater flow, trees and <br />habitat, and traffic. It defies logic that properties designated for Goal 5 protection should require less scrutiny, not <br />more. <br />This 'poison pill' has been misused to justify omitting key data. The planning staff’s acceptance of this omission, <br />essentially allowing the applicant to ignore abundant existing data, is a serious error. Exemptions do not eliminate <br />the need for analysis based on valid data, which is still required by code. The applicant has provided incomplete <br />and incorrect data to their engineers, resulting in flawed analyses. As the saying goes, 'garbage in, garbage out.' <br />For example, the applicant claims the basin size is 12.39 acres, while previous studies and even a simple review of <br />topographic maps (as shown in Figure 3) clearly demonstrate it is 30.2 acres—a 62% understatement. This has led <br />to a plan that provides only 8% of the necessary detention capacity—a facility 80 times smaller than what’s required <br />to replace the function of the wetlands (as shown in Figure 5). <br />The applicant also claims the land has no retention capacity, contradicting all evidence, including the lush wetlands <br />that persist even during droughts (Figure 4). They have not quantified existing flows, yet assure us that <br />development will not increase them—a claim impossible to verify without baseline data. They also fail to address <br />downstream capacity, a crucial requirement, and propose the impractical solution of requiring individual lot owners <br />to provide detention. This would be a significant step back ward, creating 39 potentially inadequate solutions instead <br />of a single, effective community system. Their claim that the design is 'scalable' is disingenuous, as a properly <br />sized facility would require the area of several lots (Figure 6). <br />I have been assured that these issues will be addressed in future phases, but these are fundamental design flaws <br />that must be resolved before any approval is granted, as they will significantly impact lot layout. The applicant’s <br />request for simultaneous approval of the subdivision and development plan is a strategic maneuver to circumvent <br />these critical requirements by invoking the ‘poison pill ’ before the land is subdivided and potentially removed from <br />the Goal 5 overlay. This is a clear attempt to circumv ent proper procedure. <br /> <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 28 of 43