Page | 4 <br />Given the increased pressure to develop land for housing in Eugene, we welcome a thoughtful addition to our <br />neighborhood. Everyone has expected a plan to eventually be approved and completed. This is not that plan! <br />Of the five proposals made through the years, this is by far the worst. As proposed, this development would <br />destroy most of the natural habitat, encumber the community with increased traffic and demand on services, and <br />most importantly, increase stormwater flows, endangering existing neighbors. The resulting lots would be <br />expensive, not suited for “affordable” housing. The developer has proposed deferring much of the required <br />development to future individual lot owners rather than completing it as part of the subdivision process, when <br />economy of scale would ensure a lower overall cost. Future owners who purchase the expensive lots would see <br />unusual extra costs as they excavate and fill wetlands for construction, develop solutions for access and parking, <br />and pay for engineering and construction of stormwater detention facilities. <br />Clearly the applicant is driven by profit motive and sees an opportunity for a “hail Mary” proposal to succeed with <br />minimal investment. With the community focused on increasing housing and willing to trade-off other community <br />values to do so, the developer is counting on you to accept shortcuts which would never have been considered in <br />the past. They are hoping that the exceptions added to the land use code for Goal 5 watershed properties will <br />allow them to proceed without addressing critical questions. Other requirements in the code are not met, giving you <br />secure footing to push back. We urge you to uphold the decision of the Hearings Officer to deny this application. If <br />you decide to approve the plan with conditions, please ensure that the conditions proposed in Appendix 1 are <br />included. <br />2) Critical Issues Are Ignored <br />The application fundamentally fails to address critical stormwater management issues [2]: <br />• Downstream Capacity: The application provides no evidence substantiating the capacity of downstream <br />infrastructure, particularly the flow across Videra Drive, to handle increased peak stormwater runoff. <br />• Ignoring Natural Mitigation: The application completely disregards the vital role of existing wetlands as <br />natural stormwater treatment and flow control facilities. Their destruction will significantly exacerbate <br />runoff. <br />• Missing Baseline Data: Crucially, the application fails to quantify existing (pre-development) stormwater <br />peak flows. Without this baseline data, it's impossible to verify the developer's claims of reduced peak <br />flows post-development. Only post-development calculations are provided, rendering any comparison <br />meaningless. <br /> <br /> <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 30 of 43