PDT 24-001/ST 24-003- Appeal Hearing <br />My name is Julie Butler, and I reside at 3234 Jayhawk Ct, which is a couple of blocks from the site in <br />question. I will begin by being clear that I support the Hearing ’s Official’s decision to deny the <br />application. <br />In my original testimony of July 10th and follow up of July 31st, I detailed the areas I felt code was not <br />met. This evening, I will talk about 3 that are part of this appeal. <br />Let me begin by saying, I am not a lawyer or a land use planner, so I’ve had to learn about this process, <br />the rules, codes, etc., and I have to say that they don’t make it easy for average citizens to have a part in <br />the process. The very idea that we should be here spouting code to you is just nuts. I’ve learned a lot <br />these past years, not because I wanted to but because I had to. I now know more about Clear & <br />Objective codes than I ever wanted to know. <br />I find myself in the somewhat ludicrous position of acknowledging and frankly being happy that property <br />I would normally wish to be Goal 5, is not actually Goal 5. Why? A lot of amazing screw-ups that <br />compounded each other. One would think that when a property contains 150-300 year-old, increasing <br />rare and irreplaceable native oaks, we would usually want to ensure that property is part of any plan to <br />preserve that history and ecosystem we have so irresponsibly destroyed in the past. But simply put, <br />Eugene screwed up. <br />Today, I can go online and find my house on a map. Heck, I can even see my car in the driveway! I can go <br />on the Eugene Landslide Hazard map and see that while my house is at low risk, the property is at <br />medium risk and homes just a couple blocks east are at high risk. Have you seen this 1978 Map H-2? <br />The concept that a city, in this day and age, doesn’t have something better to identify property for such <br />an important purpose, is just plain embarrassing. And now, I’m finding out that they shouldn’t have <br />been using it at all. <br />When I was originally told about the city ’s belief that the property was included on the map, I could <br />never get an answer as to what protections were enabled due to the supposed inclusion. I now realize <br />that was because there weren’t any. In contrast, the ESEE maps showing Goal 5 Wetlands, Upland <br />Habitat and Riparian Corridors, are very detailed. I can clearly see the designation of the Category C <br />stream on the property. What is missing are any designations for Scenic Sites or Areas of Plentiful <br />Vegetation. <br />To compound issues, the revised Clear & Objective codes give exceptions to Tree Preservation and <br />Removal requirements as well as Geotechnical & Geological Testing to areas that are Goal 5. Why? <br />Because Goal 5 areas all have buffers within which the resources are not to be disturbed: no <br />construction equals no tree removal or soil disturbance. The exceptions were never intended to go <br />beyond a protection buffer. I mean, what city in its right mind would not want to know that ancient 300 <br />year-old trees were protected, or that disturbing soil might create a landslide risk or the proposed homes <br />could sink due to the myriad of underground springs this property contains? <br />It ’s a bit odd for me to agree with Mr. Kloos on anything, but he was originally correct in the assertion <br />that the Goal 5 designation cannot be applied to the entire property. Why Mr. Kloos did a 180 on this is <br />also clear. He realized that by proving the entire property could not be given a Goal 5 designation, he <br />was actually screwing his client over when it came to the Tree Preservation and Removal code <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #2 Page 3 of 37