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
proposed, shows a high likelihood that the required setback for a combined Goal 5 <br />Stream and Wetland (E35A/AMA 5B) conservation setback in the Videra Park portion would <br />overlap other areas of Randy Lane beyond what has been applied for in SR 25-02. <br />i) The developer or the City needs to provide a full survey and mapping of the <br />combined Wetland and Creek Conservation area for the portion of AMA 5B <br />(wetland) and E35A (Videra Creek) in Videra Park to ensure conservation zone codes <br />are met per EC 9.4920 (2) (b). <br />ii) All trees in Videra Park within 30 feet of the property line need to be identified and <br />mapped, along with their critical root zone to ensure native oak trees in Videra Park <br />are not negatively impacted by any proposed construction. <br />iii) Address how to prevent the extension of Randy Lane, as well as the swales to the <br />north of it, from detouring and denying critical water for the trees directly on the <br />other side of the property line in Videra Park. <br />(Note: the new development at the end of Southview, almost all trees with their downhill flow of <br />water cut off by the new extension of Timberline Dr. died within a year or two.) <br />REQUEST: application must be denied based on the developer’s failure to comply with EC <br />9.4980 (4) (b) & EC 9.4920 (2) (b). <br />2. Wetland Removal Lot 38, Eugene Municipal Code 9.6715 Height Limitation. <br />Lot 38 has been disallowed for development by City of Eugene Municipal Code 9.6715 <br />Height Limitation. However, the developer has proposed destroying the associated Wetland 3B <br />in anticipation of some future change to land use laws which may never be enacted. If a <br />developer is allowed to destroy aspects of the natural environmental in anticipation of <br />undefined and undetermined future land use law changes, why couldn’t any action be justified? <br />REQUEST: The Removal/Fill wetland removal in Lot 38 be disallowed per City of Eugene <br />Municipal Code 9.6715. Development must be consistent with current approvals for the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.