requirements as well as the Geological and Geotechnical Analysis code requirements, because by <br />proving the land wasn’t Goal 5, these 2 codes would now be required. <br />The Hearings Official was correct; The property as a whole cannot be designated Goal 5, only the stream. <br />Therefore, the codes requirements for Tree Preservation and Geotechnical & Geological Analysis were <br />not met. <br />Secondly: The stormwater code. We have others who are far more learned in the intricacies of <br />stormwater, and who have submitted testimony. Mine is from the commonsense point of view. <br />The Hearing ’s Official was correct in that whether the stormwater analysis and plan, as submitted, <br />satisfies the stormwater code criteria, could not be determined. The plan was based on data provided <br />by the developer and not the actual engineering company creating the plan. That ’s a bit like the fox <br />submitting a plan for a chicken coop. Additionally, we have the other ill-conceived facet of the plan: <br />individual detention systems installed by each lot owner to replace what nature already does with the <br />wetlands. I have 2 questions: <br />• Currently, the property contains over 4 acres of wetlands, which act like a huge sponge by <br />soaking up a sizeable portion of the stormwater. <br />• Let’s say that the developer gets the approval to remove 75%, or over 3 acres, of the stormwater <br />detaining wetlands. <br />• Additionally, the trees have been removed, as has their stormwater slowing capabilities. <br />• Add in the downhill waterflow issues arising with property that is very sloped. <br />• The next rain event occurs prior to any individual lot being developed, which means no <br />underground stormwater detention systems. <br />• So, 1) Where does all of that stormwater, previously soaked up by the wetlands, and now <br />running down the slope unimpeded, go? <br />• And 2) Who do we, as the affected neighbors, get to hold accountable for the ensuing mess? <br />As an aside, as I discussed in my prior submission, we have Timberline Hills and Aerie Park, both within a <br />half mile of this property. Both began development 20 years ago. Neither one is completed, and one still <br />has 96 more lots platted & recorded. Development is not a foregone conclusion. I had one builder (a <br />member of Eugene Homebuilders Assoc) tell me that this property is known as one that is too costly to <br />develop and will never pencil out, so is considered a non-starter. So, the scenario I’ve described has a <br />high likelihood of occurrence. <br />Third: The Code requiring secondary access for fire and other emergency vehicles. We are all, and I do <br />mean all, aware of what is happening in the Los Angeles area as we speak. Thousands upon thousands <br />have lost their homes and many have lost their lives. Stories are rampant about people trying to <br />evacuate. I think we’ve all seen the bulldozers literally moving abandoned cars in order to allow fire <br />trucks to access the fires. Why were the cars abandoned? Because they were at a standstill in <br />evacuating traffic and the people had to flee on foot to save their lives. <br />This is where the city absolutely needs to learn a lesson and act on it! The code for Secondary Access is <br />laughably ineffective. The Hearing ’s Official even noted that access to the vast majority of the proposed <br />lots would rely on a single access point from the intersection of Randy Lane and Blacktail Drive, but <br />agrees that the codes only require the property itself to have one, which is supposedly satisfied because <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #2 Page 4 of 37