Page | 11 <br />Conclusion <br />There is particular irony here: this most sensitive, unstable, and challenging property (which has remained <br />undeveloped for good reason) is now being proposed for development with less study, justification and planning <br />than any other type of property! <br />The community has not fully addressed climate change, and has already been directed by the state to re -examine <br />requirements for Middle Housing. As you know, Eugene has not yet considered Goal 7 requirements for steep and <br />unstable terrain (the property in this proposal shows up as bright red on the Goal 7 maps!). This is clearly a time <br />for caution, not a time to overlook long-standing safety measures in land development. <br />In conclusion, this proposal is a gamble with our safety and property. The planning department’s recommendation <br />to approve this fundamentally flawed plan, despite the Hearings Officer’s denial, is deeply concerning. This plan is <br />based on incomplete and inaccurate data, disregards established science and engineering principles, and fails to <br />meet key requirements of our land use code. It drastically underestimates stormwater peak flows, ignores the <br />crucial role of existing wetlands, and proposes an impractical and inadequate detention system. Approving this plan <br />would set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to future disasters. I urge you to uphold the conclusions of the <br />Hearings Officer, prioritize the well-being of our community, and deny this application. Current and future <br />generations will thank you for your foresight in preventing a predictable disaster. <br />Larry Smith <br />Videra Drive Homeowners Association <br /> <br /> <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 37 of 43