My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Testimony Through 02-20-2026
>
OnTrack
>
PDF
>
2025
>
PDF 25-01
>
Public Testimony Through 02-20-2026
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2026 4:06:26 PM
Creation date
3/2/2026 4:06:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDF
File Year
25
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Braewood Hills 3rd Addition
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
2/23/2026
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
From:Gabriel Yospin <br />To:GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject:PDF 25-01 & SDR 25-02 <br />Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 9:52:54 AM <br />You don't often get email from drgabrielyospin@gmail.com. Learn why this is important <br />[EXTERNAL ] <br />Dear Nick Gioello, <br />I am writing to you today to request that you deny application PDF 25-001, Braewood <br />Hills 3rd Addition. <br />The Final Planned Unit Development Proposal violates Section 9.8365 of the Eugene <br />Code, titled “Final Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria” which requires the <br />“Final PUD plan conforms with the approved tentative PUD plan and all the <br />conditions attached thereto.” The Joint Use Access and Utility Easement and <br />Maintenance Agreement (JAM) shared with concerned parties on February 7th, 2026, <br />describes shared driveways that are either 14 feet wide or of "variable width." This is <br />vague and fails to set a clear standard. The possibility of driveways that are too narrow <br />for emergency vehicle access is a risk to public safety and against the public interest. <br />This will be of special concern during a wildland fire. <br />The proposed plan does not include adequate setbacks for the documented wetlands. <br />The plan does not include the 25 foot buffer required under Section 9.4920(2)(b) of <br />the Eugene Code. Because of the category C stream, the plan also violates Section <br />9.4920(3) of the Eugene Code by failing to include the required 40-foot setback. <br />The City has determined that this is a Goal 5 property and thus needs to be <br />inventoried for natural resources, including but not limited to: all wetlands within 50 <br />feet of property lines; all trees inventoried by size and species; and the preservation of <br />critical root zones for trees. <br />The plan violates Eugene Code 9.4930(3)(e)(3), which requires that all excavated <br />areas be backfilled with existing native soil. <br />For these reasons, I request that you deny these applications. <br />Sincerely, <br />Gabriel Yospin, PhD <br />2127 Lincoln St <br />Eugene, OR 97405
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.