2B, they cannot have properly fulfilled this requirement. <br />3. Eugene City code EC 9.4930 (3) (e) 3: Requires that excavated areas be backfilled with <br />existing native soil: This was not addressed by the developer at all, so therefore it is not in <br />compliance. <br />4. Eugene City code EC 9.4980 (4) (b) covers prevention of chemicals, petroleum, <br />products, etc. from entering stream or wetland during construction. However, the applicant <br />gave no indication of how they will comply with this code’s requirements. The developer must <br />state what measures they will take to ensure that petroleum products, chemicals, or other <br />deleterious materials used in the construction process will be prevented from entering the <br />stream or wetland. Further, the proposed development shares a property line with Eugene <br />City Parks’ Videra Park, which is home to Videra Creek as well as wetlands that straddle both <br />the property and park. The developer should be required to state how Videra Park and its <br />natural resources will be protected from any incursion by machinery, products or chemicals. <br />Re PDF 25-01 <br />Section 9.8365 of the Eugene City Code requires that “the final PUD plan conforms with the <br />approved tentative PUD plan and all conditions attached thereto”. However, the Developers <br />only included in their most recent submission on January 21, 2026 information on Joint <br />Access Easements for shared driveways (defined as JAM), including their maintenance, and <br />the responsibilities of homeowners. Since this new important information was not included in <br />the tentative PUD plan, the final PUD plan violates City Code Section 9.8365. <br />There are several specific deficiencies with the proposed JAM. <br />1. Both the JAM and the site maps indicate the shared driveways will be either 14 feet <br />wide or of “variable width.” Variable width is a fuzzy description that fails to set out a clear <br />standard. 14 feet wide is insufficient for two SUV’s or trucks to pass each other – only <br />compact or medium size cars would be able to travel in opposite directions at the same time. <br />This will reduce the likelihood that the affected lots will sell. <br />2. In cases where a single-family home is placed on the lot, that could mean between <br />four and ten or more vehicles sharing a driveway. In the case of multi-unit housing on any lot, <br />it will mean many more vehicles using the same access way. <br />I hope that the planning department will appreciate that the current proposal, like two other <br />failed developments in the South Eugene Hills that the department approved, is deeply flawed <br />and likely to lead to yet another set of “roads to nowhere” as well as needlessly destroyed <br />wetlands and natural resources with at best a scattering of built and part built houses. <br />Sincerely <br />Mark Biggin <br />